Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AMOCO(U.K.) BILL [Lords]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

NATIONAL TRUST BILL [Lords]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Prices (Increase)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the rise in the prices of vegetables, fruit, nuts and meat between 1st December and 24th December, 1970.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): No prices were collected for the two dates quoted by the hon. Member, but my information indicates that there was some upward movement in the retail price of some fresh vegetables, meat and apples during December.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that upward movement was very considerable indeed? Cannot something be done to protect the housewife? Must the Government always be on the side of the producers and profiteers? Why cannot something be done to help the ordinary housewife, particularly at seasonal times, and, from the point of view of the coming months, in regard to prices charged between the middle and end of the week?

Mr. Prior: There were the normal seasonal increases in the prices of some fresh fruit and vegetables, but many other foods showed no change in price. As for chickens and turkeys, prices started at a rather high level but came down as Christmas proceeded, which shows that the hon. Gentleman's case is not made out.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the increase in food prices from June, 1970 to the latest available date.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the movements in retail food prices which took place during the second half of 1970, for items other than those showing significant seasonal variations.

Mr. Prior: Between 16th June and 15th December, the Food Index rose by 1·8 per cent. and the sub-group covering items other than those which show significant seasonal variations rose by 5·5 per cent.

Mr. Eadie: Do not the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have a bad conscience now in the light of the fact that they made promises to the electorate, which are now proved to have been grossly extravagant, in order to be elected?

Mr. Prior: I never cease to wonder at the Opposition's attitude. In the five years from June, 1965, to June, 1970, the food index rose by 25·9 per cent., whereas in the previous five years, from June, 1959, to June, 1964, it rose by only 11·4 per cent. Surely our policies have been seen to work in the past, just as they will in the future.

Mr. Barnes: Is not the 5·5 per cent. rise in non-seasonal foods, which, after all, form the bulk of purchases for the vast majority of families, very ominous in view a the fact that the Grocer reports that decimalisation may be followed by a trend of rapidly rising prices? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the evidence is that there is possibly too much competition in food manufacturing, especially bearing in mind the great bargaining power of the big supermarket groups? How can competition without Government intervention stabilise prices?

Mr. Prior: There is not too much competition in food manufacturing at present. On the whole, the competition there is responsible and is good for the consumer and the housewife. Broadly speaking, the same applies to the big multiple retailers. On decimalisation, I always thought that one of the reasons why we had an early election was so that the Labour Party would not have to face the increased costs when decimalisation took place.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in all these inflationary tendencies, the present demand for a 9d. post by the Post Office workers and the demand for a huge increase in pay by the power workers will greatly afflict the food-processing industries and hasten inflation? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend resist these extravagant claims?

Mr. Prior: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Inflation is the biggest single factor in putting up prices.

Mr. Strang: In view of the Government's cynical betrayal of their promises on food prices before the election and the continuing rapid increase in food prices, will the Minister say when the present increases will be blamed on the last Labour Government, or is it now time to blame the trade union movement?

Mr. Prior: Most of us recognise that this is a serious problem for a great many people. I am not certain that either side of the House gains a great deal by bandying about phrases such as "cynical betrayal" and so on. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must look to their own record in these matters before they start accusing us.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Is it not elementary that the rise in food prices complained of was due to comparatively slow acting factors which first arose under the previous Administration?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. The increases in the price of food in the last year fell nearly all before June. Therefore, I cannot accept responsibility for them. But I know only too well that in the next few months we shall have some considerable increases to take into account.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of rising food prices, what proposals he has to repeal legislation which adversely affects food prices.

Mr. Prior: None at present, but these matters are kept under review.

Mr. Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition stand guilty of bringing in legislation and taxation which have increased the price of food considerably? Will he take steps, particularly by amending the Transport Act and reducing taxation, to see that this burden is lifted from food?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. The effects of selective employment tax and the Transport Act have been contributory factors in putting up prices in the past few years.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister prepared to accept the advice given to him by Sir Roy Harrod, writing in the Bankers Magazine, that this country should put a freeze on prices, as this would go a long way towards solving the inflationary tendencies? Will he advise the Cabinet to accept Sir Roy's advice and give up the Industrial Relations Bill?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House and the housewives are bored with hearing his continual excuse about selective employment tax? If he does not like it, why does he not tell the Prime Minister to get rid of it, as he promised in the General Election campaign? Are not the Government guilty of dismantling the machinery which we set up to protect the housewife against rising prices? Why does not he bring that back?

Mr. Prior: I am absolutely guilty of helping to dismantle the machinery which


the Opposition set up, because that machinery merely resulted in food prices going up twice as fast as in the last five years of Conservative Government. I am delighted to hear that at last the hon. Lady's constituents are telling her about selective employment tax.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect of the latest increase in the price of petrol on retail food prices.

Mr. Prior: Any such effect would be negligible: but all cost increases are an impediment to maintaining stable prices.

Mrs. Fisher: Why does not the Minister give instances in which competition between trades and manufacturers is keeping prices down instead of bleating about how the housewife herself should shop around to keep down prices?

Mr. Prior: This is the third increase in petrol prices which we have had this year and the Prices and Incomes Board did not seem to have any more effect on that, either.

Mr. Bob Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman prevail upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take steps to reduce the tax on petrol in order to keep stable the cost of food?

Mr. Prior: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Cattle Population

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cattle population of Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire at the June, 1970 census; and how this compares with the total in June, 1969.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): The total cattle population of Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire at the June, 1970, census was 605,433 compared with 615,581 in June, 1969.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Does it not show the complete failure of the Labour Government's alleged expansionist policy? May we be assured that his right hon. Friend is con-

vinced of the necessity to reverse this disastrous trend?

Mr. Stodart: The figures which I have given represent a fall of 1½ per cent. compared with the national England and Wales increase of 0·5 per cent., which means only a marginal change. To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I should have thought that the action which we took in October, with the injection of capital, should do much to correct this situation.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the beef expansion programme is going extremely well and according to the targets set in the expansion programme? I am, of course, speaking about beef and not about dairy cattle.

Mr. Stodart: I was asked in the Question about the whole of the cattle population. It is true that beef cattle show an increase, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is an improvement on the previous erratic performance.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why refer to an injection of income of less than the increase in costs as an "injection of capital"?

Mr. Stodart: I was not aware that I had used the phrase "injection of capital" in that context. I should have referred to the injection in October, and nobody will deny the value of what was equivalent to an extra £1 per cwt.

Mr. Mackie: Is this not a false way to present figures? The United Kingdom beef cattle population is up and the dairy cattle population is about the same. Milk supply is up—and that is what we want. After all, we do not want an increase in the number of milk cows unless we get more milk from them. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a bad way to present figures? What conclusion can be reached based simply on figures for Nottinghamshire?

Mr. Stodart: I have answered the Question.

Food Prices (Import Levies)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to publish an explanatory leaflet setting out the effect of import levies on food this year so far as the consumer is concerned.

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 7th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 39–40.]

Mr. Eadie: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that consumers are entitled to know what price increases will confront them when the Government begin to operate the policies of the Common Market countries? Does not he think that consumers are entitled to know what this means for them in the shape of increased prices?

Mr. Prior: Yes, consumers are entitled to know what the increase would be both under the levy system when it comes in and under the Common Market system. At the right time and in the right way I will give that information. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading the Question tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, he will find the answer there.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman referred to negotiations on levies which have been going on for some months. When does he propose to make a statement about them?

Mr. Prior: As soon as the negotiations are completed.

New Zealand (Official Visit)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to pay an official visit to New Zealand.

Mr. Prior: I have no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Marten: With regard to our new levies on New Zealand lamb, will those levies be borne ultimately by the British housewife or by the New Zealand sheep farmer? When I was in New Zealand last week, I found that there was a lot of confusion about who would bear the final cost.

Mr. Prior: The talks going on between ourselves and the New Zealand Government are confidential. We shall make an announcement about that as soon as we can. The objective of the levies is to raise the market price internally and thus to reduce the deficiency payment, which in turn will enable the Government to reduce income tax and other taxes.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is not it clear that the Minister intends to impose a meat tax on the British housewife by a system of levies which will be imposed without any of the benefits of entering the Common Market? Is he not jumping the gun on this issue?

Mr. Prior: It is the hon. Gentleman who is jumping the gun. He had better wait.

Meat and Livestock Commission

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Meat and Livestock Commission.

Mr. Prior: As I indicated in yesterday's White Paper on the work of my Ministry, my right hon. Friends and I are satisfied that the Commission has a useful rôle to play at the present time.

Mr. Strang: While I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the important contribution which the M.L.C. can make, will he assure the House that the Corn-mission will not be debarred from evaluating the products of livestock breeders, as it wants to do? If it is not to be debarred from this function, why is it right for the M.L.C. to evaluate the current market products of breeding firms but wrong for the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering to evaluate the machinery of agricultural engineering firms?

Mr. Prior: I regret to say that I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman about this. It is a very technical matter and I require notice of it. As for the M.L.C., for the moment the position stands as it is set out in the White Paper. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that British agriculture has not always been able to practise good husbandry for the reason that farmers have not had good enough end prices? In future, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they have good enough prices?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. The need in British agriculture at present is for a higher end price. If it were not for a prosperous British agriculture, the housewife would have to pay a lot more for food than she does pay.

Earl of Dalkeith: How much is the Meat and Livestock Commission costing the taxpayer?

Mr. Prior: The only charges on the taxpayer are those for the salaries of the members of the Commission. The rest of the costs are borne by the industry by means of the levy.

Good Husbandry

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in modifying the system of public support for agriculture, and with particular reference to the policy of expanding output, what proposals he has for encouraging good husbandry and discouraging practices likely to harm soil structure or fertility.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: It is in the farmer's own interest to understand soil management and avoid practices that harm his soil. Assistance is available to him from the various services of my Department. In modifying the support system our aim is to enable farmers to get a proper return from the market and, within that framework to take their own farming decisions.

Mr. Spearing: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, does not he agree that the soil is the nation's most important and vital asset? Does not he also agree that any statutory provision, whether it be levy or support, should encourage farmers to engage in sound systems of husbandry which maintain soil health?

Mr. Stodart: I agree. The basic remedy for the deficiencies that were shown by the recent soil structure report, although we should not exaggerate them, is a more balanced and more prosperous agriculture.

World Food Prices

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the trend in world food prices during the last 12 months, from information available from international services.

Mr. Prior: Information published by the United Nations indicates that for food and feedingstuffs exports, prices on various world markets rose on average by about 4 per cent. between the second

quarters of 1969 and 1970; quotations on world markets for a number of important foodstuffs show that prices continued to increase during the second half of 1970.

Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that Answer, taken in conjunction with his Answer to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), suggests that arguments about a vast increase in the price of food which we shall have to pay as a result of joining the Common Market are, to put the matter at its lowest, extremely shortsighted?

Mr. Prior: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Our estimate is that over 1970 as a whole world food prices may well show an increase of 6 to 7 per cent., at a time when the Common Market has kept its farm prices stable for the past four years.

Mr. Golding: Do not the figures also show that the attacks on us by the Conservative Party last June were completely bogus? Do not they show that the increases in food prices occurring then were beyond the control of the then Government, but that food price increases envisaged in the coming year, because of taxes put on at the ports, will be well within the control of the present Administration?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. The point of our proposals for levies is that we should stabilise prices this year at about their present level. This will be done through the introduction of a levy scheme. Over the past five years food prices and the cost-of-living index have risen to record levels.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: With reference to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), does my right hon. Friend accept that there is nothing shortsighted in recognising that the immediate increase in food prices will reflect itself in wage demands which may well disrupt the whole competitiveness of this country at a vital time in our history?

Mr. Prior: Some of us believe that the longer-term advantages of joining the Common Market should not be judged entirely by the short-term disadvantages of higher prices for food.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the Minister agree that if he stabilises prices at the present level, the price of cereals, for example, will be at a very high level and will inevitably result in high feed prices and create difficulties, particularly for the stock farmer?

Mr. Prior: Most of the higher prices to the stock farmer resulting from higher grain prices have already worked their way through to the consumer. Therefore, I do not think that there would be any major increase now resulting from the higher grain prices.

Food Education Council

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to appoint a Food Education Council to advise consumers on nutrition.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: No, Sir. A number of organisations are performing this function.

Mrs. Butler: Since a number of eminent nutritionists are very concerned about the lack of nutritive value in many modern foods, and since the Minister has responsibility for ensuring that the food we eat is nutritious, what more does he intend to do to advise consumers in general, and special groups like the elderly and those catering for children, who may be specially at risk?

Mr. Stodart: My Department does a great deal of advising on nutrition. It watches things like food standards, food additives and so on. There are numerous bodies ranging from the British Nutrition Foundation and the British Dietetic Association, and separate organisations for practically every individual food, from fish right through to mushrooms. I do not think that any extra advisory body is called for.

Tractors

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to refer to the Monopolies Commission the action of those tractor manufacturers who have declined to sell their tractors without a fitted safety cab.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: While I do not exclude this possibility, I prefer immediately to follow the course I set out in my speech in the debate on the Motion for

the Adjournment on 13th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 225–30.]

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. I am grateful that he realises how repugnant is the attitude which certain tractor cab manufacturers and tractor manufacturers have taken. Has he had any success yet in his approach to those manufacturers?

Mr. Stodart: I am very anxious to get a solution to the matter as quickly as possible. Although my hon. Friend's suggestion is not impossible, it would mean a fairly slow procedure. It would be much quicker and more certain if the manufacturers co-operated with us. They have been invited to see me next week.

Mr. Buchan: How can the Minister say that he is considering the Monopolies Commission step as a possibility when in his White Paper issued yesterday he says that he will leave advice to farmers on their choice of machinery entirely to commercial sources? The two things are contradictory. Should not the hon. Gentleman rescind yesterday's White Paper?

Mr. Stodart: There is any amount of competition between the various tractor manufacturers for the sale of their vehicles. This is quite a different matter.

Dairy Herd (Size)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the dairy herd size at the moment in view of the need to meet the milk supplies required this year and to help in the production of beef; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The number of dairy cows in the United Kingdom was 31,000 lower in June, 1970, than in June, 1969. This is one of the factors for consideration at the forthcoming Annual Review.

Mr. Mills: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that owing to the large amount of slaughtering of dairy cows in the autumn there could in some circumstances be a shortage of milk this coming year? Certainly, he will not be able to get the expansion he wants unless something is done about this problem.

Mr. Stodart: There was a reduction in the autumn owing to the high beef prices then prevalent, but my hon. Friend will


be relieved to learn that milk sales are likely to hold good and even be up. The count of heifers in June was up by 5 per cent.

Mr. Wellbeloved: What will be the effect on milk sales and production of the Government's policy to destroy the principle of free milk in schools for our children?

Mr. Stodart: Absolutely nothing in this financial year. It will be a matter for the Price Review.

Mr. Brewis: Looking a few years ahead, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there will be sufficient margin for liquid milk consumption in winter, and sufficient over for increased butter and cheese production?

Mr. Stodart: I think that there is a considerable margin for increased butter and cheese production. The levies which we propose putting on minor milk products will assist in raising the returns, and this will all help. I think that I can answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question in the affirmative.

Eggs

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to limit the import of eggs during the height of the laying season, and to ensure that home-produced eggs are not priced out of the market by the export of eggs sold well below domestic prices at country of origin

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The home industry is protected against imports at unduly low prices by minimum import prices.

Mr. Osborn: Has my hon. Friend had time to study the representations from the Sheffield and Rotherham branch of the N.F.U., members of which are finding it difficult to sell their eggs at this time of year against imports arising from barter agreements? Will my hon. Friend watch such barter agreements in the future and ensure that the products come into the country at prices that do not damage the home market?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir. I have done so. I apologise to my hon. Friend for not replying to him sooner. He will get a letter from me this evening.

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider a rise in the minimum import prices for eggs and egg products, in order to preserve the stability of the shell egg market in the United Kingdom; and whether he will consider an adjustment in the ratio between the minimum import prices for dried egg and frozen whole egg.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The minimum import prices for shell eggs, frozen egg, and dried egg will shortly be fully reviewed in accordance with our understandings with overseas suppliers, and the minimum import prices for shell eggs are in any case due to be raised by 2d. a dozen in March.

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been received from levies on egg imports so far this year.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: £87,000 was collected between April and November, 1970.

Mr. Howell: In view of his Replies, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he will consider reviewing the whole of the egg levy system?

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that we can review the whole of the system, but there is a review of the minimum import prices in the first quarter of each year, and that will take place in the way I have stated.

Farm Machinery Depreciation

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in calculating farm machinery depreciation for the Annual Price Review, he will allow a higher rate of early depreciation, and a lower rate of later depreciation, in place of the straight-line depreciation rate currently employed by his Department.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that straight-line depreciation at replacement costs is suitable for the Departmental Net Income Calculation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely my hon. Friend wants to achieve some degree of reality so that the net farm income figures are meaningful? Is not it desirable that


the written-down value of machinery should bear some relation to what it actually fetches when it is traded in?

Mr. Stodart: The alternative to the straight-line depreciation is the diminishing balance. The straight-line system uses current replacement costs and is approved by the National Farmers' Union, while the diminishing balance, although it is the traditional Inland Revenue method, does not take account of inflation, and therefore has grave disadvantages.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to inform farmers that they should make sure to enter all their machinery on the annual census form, so that depreciation on it all can be calculated by his Department for inclusion in its annual computation of the industry's costs.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that farmers do not complete their census returns accurately and fully, in accordance with their statutory obligation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend look into this matter? If he wants to find out what the costs are—in other words, to run his Department on the basis of accurate information—he will find, if he examines the matter, that a lot of machinery which is not frequently used does not appear on the annual census form.

Mr. Stodart: I absolutely agree, but there is no reason to suppose that the depreciation allowances are under-rated, because allowances are made in respect of machines that are not returned. I should be unwilling to add more questions to the already lengthy census returns. I would rather have fewer.

Food (Consumer Expenditure)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of consumer expenditure was spent on food in 1964; and how this figure compares with 1970.

Mr. Prior: The proportion of total consumer expenditure which was spent on food for the 12 months to the end of September, 1964, was about 26½ per cent. compared with nearly 24 per cent. for the 12 months to the end of Septem-

ber, 1970, the latest period for which information is available.

Mr. Morrison: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very interesting reply. Would not the proportion of expenditure on food have decreased further if more people had not spent more and more money on luxury foods?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. Broadly speaking, as a nation grows richer—although over the past few years this nation has done so rather more slowly than usual—it spends a smaller proportion of its total outgoings on food. That is one of the reasons why it is possible at this stage to move over to the higher market price without its having a great effect on either consumption or people's standards of living.

Mr. Barnes: Does not the Minister agree that overall figures taking in the whole population are extremely misleading as to the family circumstances of many people with below-average incomes? Could he give us comparative figures for 1964 and 1970 for families with earnings below the national average wage?

Mr. Prior: I cannot give those figures without notice. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question, or I will write to him about it. But the information available to me shows that old-age pensioners, for example, who form one of the sections of society which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, are tending to spend a lower proportion of their total expenditure on food.

Miss Hall: Can my right hon. Friend also give us figures for the amount of money spent on convenience foods in the period 1964–70? Although they are very useful, convenience foods are a luxury.

Mr. Prior: Again, I cannot give those figures without notice, but if my hon. Friend puts down a Question I will deal with it. The point surely is that, as a nation becomes more prosperous, it wants to spend less time on cooking and more time on other things, and, therefore, everything we can do to encourage convenience foods, we should do.

Brucellosis

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and


Food if he will now make an announcement about brucellosis eradication orders.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the statutory Orders for this year's compulsory area eradication programmes. These will be laid, as necessary, after the areas themselves have been selected and announced in the spring.

Mr. Morrison: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the N.F.U. about compensation? Has any agreement been reached about it?

Mr. Stodart: We are, as my hon. Friend knows, to bring in a flat rate of compensation for this, and discussions have been held about it.

Mr. David Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, especially in areas of high distribution and retailing of milk, there is considerable concern and distress about brucellosis and that we welcome his decision to go ahead with eradication schemes? But this is also a human disease. Can he not complete the process and bring pressure to bear on the Government to make brucellosis a notifiable disease in humans?

Mr. Stodart: In all my speeches on the subject I have tended to point out that the human disease has been underrated. I believe that it is considerably worse than it is held out to be. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Maclennan: What increase has there been in brucella-free stocks during the past year? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is such as to enable these eradication orders to be introduced soon?

Mr. Stodart: We understand that the schemes will be able to go ahead with a sufficient reservoir of stock. If the hon. Gentleman would like precise figures, I will try to let him have them.

Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he is proposing in the Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959 to take account of the increasing use of organic arsenical substances in animal feeding; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: None. The Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959, strictly limit the amount of arsenic which may be present in food for sale for human consumption, irrespective of its origin.

Mrs. Butler: In view of some of the high levels of arsenic which have been found in pig's livers by county inspectors in farms in various parts of the country, could the hon. Gentleman at least ask the appropriate committee to look at these regulations to make sure that they are adequate to cope with modern conditions?

Mr. Stodart: I am prepared to do that, although my information is that the episodes to which the hon. Lady refers have been minute in number. However, I am ready to ask for the matter to be looked into.

Meat Tax

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has made to the meat trade in respect of the Government's plans to introduce a meat tax; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: Details of the Government's proposed levy schemes have been given in confidence to meat trade organisations at a series of meetings held recently. Discussions with other Governments are still taking place. I am not in a position to announce details of the proposals at present.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Bearing in mind the Conservative Party's election pledge to halt the rise in prices at a stroke, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his plot to impose a meat tax on the housewife's family joint is a scandalous betrayal of that pledge? When can we expect a statement telling us the facts of how this disgraceful meat tax will be imposed on the British housewife?

Mr. Prior: The needle of the hon. Gentleman's gramophone record seems to get stuck in the same place.

Mr. Alfred Morris: While I think that the right hon. Gentleman should answer the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) before attempting to answer mine, may I ask whether he


can give even a preliminary idea of the reaction of the New Zealand Government to these plans for levies on meat imports?

Mr. Prior: The negotiations with New Zealand are, of course, confidential, but I assure the House that they have been extremely cordial.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is it not becoming increasingly obvious to hon. Members and to millions of our constituents outside that the Government are so deeply dedicated to taking us willy-nilly into the Common Market that they are deliberately seeking to increase the prices of food in order to bring British prices nearer to Continental prices so as to make entry easier from the political point of view?

Mr. Prior: I make it plain that the interim levy scheme on which we are working is one that we shall introduce whether we go into the Common Market or not.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in view of the disgraceful nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should give his notice in the conventional form.

Home-produced Beef and Lamb

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of home-produced beef and lamb for 1971; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: As a result of heavy marketings of fat stock in the last quarter of 1970, home beef production in the calendar year 1971 is expected to be some 3 per cent. lower than in 1970. Lamb production is likely to be about 7 per cent. less.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is it not the case that, during recent years, the producers have consistently overestimated their contribution towards meat production in this country? Will the hon. Gentleman take more seriously the views of consumers

rather than the views of the vested interests of the N.F.U.?

Mr. Stodart: I urge the hon. Gentleman to realise that his questions about calendar years can be extremely misleading. There were heavy marketings of beef in the autumn of last year, which will undoubtedly offset numbers this year, whereas lamb marketings were held back in the autumn and will not come through until 1971. Therefore, to use a calendar year as a basis can be most misleading.

Food Contamination (Monitoring)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to forbid the sale of tuna fish in the event of continuing evidence of possible contamination by industrial effluent.

Mr. Prior: I have now instituted a scheme of monitoring for certain heavy metals, initially methyl mercury, in canned and fresh fish and certain other foods important in the national diet. I am circulating a detailed note on the scheme in the OFFICIAL REPORT and have made copies available in the Library. If, on the results obtained, my expert advisers consider that action is needed, I have adequate powers to protect the consumer.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for letting me have a copy of the document. Is he aware that the public will welcome this reassuring step in view of the increasing anxiety about the side effects of industrial pollutions? This is a very good step forward.

Mr. Prior: The primary sample will be of about 3,000 items annually. I hope that this will reassure public opinion. But if I think that further measures are necessary, I will take them.

Following is the information:

I have now organised, in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services, Scotland and Trade and Industry, a scheme of monitoring of canned and fresh fish and of a proportion of other foods which are important in the national diet.

A primary sample of about 3,000 items annually will be analysed by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, by the Government Fisheries Laboratories and


by the Plant Pathology Laboratory. The sample will be supplemented by further tests undertaken through offers of co-operation from local authority analysts. Some food research institutes and research associations may also be undertaking research in this area and will be invited to make results available for consideration with those resulting from the monitoring scheme.

The monitoring scheme will concentrate on methyl mercury, but the opportunity will be taken to make checks for the presence of certain other heavy metals. The selection of these additional metals will be made when I have the advice on this of the Pharmacology Sub-Committee of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. The results obtained from the monitoring will be co-ordinated by the Ministry's scientists and associated with statistical information about the proportion of particular foods in the national diet which is available from the National Food Survey.

The main monitoring scheme will be supplemented in two ways. In the first, there will be a random check of foodstuffs which are of minor significance in the national diet where it is nevertheless desirable to confirm from time to time that the presence of methyl mercury is at levels which cause no concern. The second approach will be to seek to establish the possible existence of small local areas of pollution which might affect levels of mercury in food and make special checks at such places.

The results obtained by the main monitoring and by these supplementary checks will be submitted to the Pharmacology Sub-Committee and to the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee. The results will be published with the observations of these Committees at half-yearly intervals, and a first report should be made public by the autumn. If the monitoring scheme revealed cause for concern either in general or in a local area I should, of course, bring this information to the attention of my expert advisers immediately and announce the action which I was taking to protect the consumer if this proved necessary.

Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, we have reached the end of Questions to the Minister of Agriculture today and, as he will shortly

be leaving the Chamber, may I ask your advice? He said nothing in his White Paper yesterday about the future of the White Fish Authority. He has consistently refused to give any answer and, in the unhappy event today of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) not being here to ask Question No. 9, we still have no answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make a statement on the future of the White Fish Authority, which is so vital to the fishing industry?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but no doubt the Minister heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he will reduce the number of Ministers concerned with industrial conciliation.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no point in the Government preaching about "one nation" while they refuse to conciliate in industrial disputes, thus helping to create two nations? Will he learn from the growing bitterness of the power and postal workers, drawing the lesson that the Government's policy of calculated indifference will result only in encouraging calculated industrial disputes?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the Government's policy, which always has been that it is within the discretion of the Secretary of State for Employment to decide whether to use his conciliation services. I understand that a statement may be made quite soon about the Post Office dispute.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (ECONOMIC ADVISER)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an economic adviser to the office of Prime Minister.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
No. My right hon. Friend already has access to a wide range of economic advice.

Mr. Sheldon: Since it is clear that either the advice is inadequate or the Government are paying no attention to it, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about the figures released by the Department of Trade and Industry yesterday, which show that industrial investment this year will be less than for last year, which is the first time that this has happened since 1963? Is not this situation due to the fact that the Government changed from investment grants to tax allowances? Does it not show the failure of their policy?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I am certain that the figures do not fit with the timing of changes in investment incentives. We must recognise that continuing wage inflation absorbs the cash resources of industry and makes industrial investment very difficult.

Mr. Hordern: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever economic advice the Prime Minister may care to take, he should take none at all from the Opposition who, while in power, achieved the worst record of economic growth of any of the O.E.C.D. countries?

Mr. Maudling: It is unlikely that my right hon. Friend will look across the Chamber for economic advice.

Mr. Golding: Since a tribunal has been established to declare what the national economic interest is, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us that, in future, when men are appointed to adjudicate on the national economic interest, the Government will not appoint a chairman who cannot understand detailed statistics or an employers' representative who cannot understand economics?

Mr. Maudling: If the premises on which that supplementary question were based had any validity, I should be prepared to answer it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: While it is true that wage claims are having a great effect on the cash flow of industry, is it not also the case that high interest rates plus bank squeeze together are bound to interfere with normal business invest-

ment? Is there any chance of having a slight relaxation of the squeeze, if not of interest rates?

Mr. Maudling: I certainly would not predict reductions in interest rates, or in Bank Rate above all. It is true that the greater the rate of cost inflation, the more the need to restrain demand inflation.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is there any country in the world which has interest rates as high as we have?

Mr. Maudling: I should need notice before I could answer about every other country in the world. Certainly I can think of few major industrial countries which have had such cost inflation problems as those which we inherited from the last Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIEGO GARCIA

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Australia on bases/staging posts in the British Indian Ocean territory.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
The Australian Government were informed about the proposed naval communications facility at Diego Garcia before the public announcement was made.

Mr. Dalyell: What has been the AngloAustralian reply to the view of the Indian and Ceylon Governments that the Indian Ocean should be demilitarised?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that the matter is being discussed at the conference in Singapore, and I cannot say anything about it at the moment. I gather that the proposal for this facility has been much welcomed in Australia.

Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Soviet threat in the Indian Ocean is entirely a political one, not military, and, therefore, does not justify the Government's somewhat hysterical fears?

Mr. Maudling: I thought that the photographs which we saw in the newspapers recently were more of a naval than of a political character.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether, during the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, he discussed with the New Zealand Prime Minister the effect upon New Zealand of Great Britain entering the Common Market.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making on his return.

Mr. Marten: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government are fully aware of the disaster which would overtake the people of New Zealand unless we secure absolutely gilt-edged assurances for their sheep and dairy industries?

Mr. Maudling: I do not believe that there is any difference on either side of the House about this. In all the discussions with Western Europe, we have always recognised the fundamental importance of the British market to the New Zealand economy, and no Government, of any complexion, would ever dare or wish to ignore that.

Mr. J. T. Price: How is it that leaders of Government opinion are so ready to use the "kith-and-kin" argument when applied to Rhodesia yet, when we are talking about our kith and kin in New Zealand and Australia, they are so loth to regard them in the same light as being of our common stock?

Mr. Maudling: That does not, I think, arise out of this Question. I have never myself used the kith-and-kin argument, and it is a phrase which I do not much like. No one on either side of the House has ever failed to recognise the deep and lasting ties between the people of this country and the people of Australia and New Zealand.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH

Mr. Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech on wage inflation to the Young Conservatives on 5th December, 1970.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech made to the Young Conservatives on 5th December on industrial relations in the House of Commons Library.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend did so on 9th December.

Mr. Barnett: Is not the speech very much out of date now, in view of the 18 per cent. Chrysler wage settlement which has shown that the Government's attempt to make an example of the public sector is not working? In such circumstances, how can the right hon. Gentleman expect the generally lower-paid public employees to accept the Government's policy of less than 10 per cent., when it is seen to be so grotesquely unfair?

Mr. Maudling: The question of comparabilities is complicated and they should be looked at in some detail. The experience of the previous Administration did not show that a rigid statutory control of all incomes was a great success.

Mr. Sheldon: As the fight with public employees is manifestly failing to influence the private sector, when will the Government take responsibility themselves for economic action instead of leaving it to courts of inquiry?

Mr. Maudling: I do not accept that the attitude which the Government have taken on incomes in the public sector has failed to influence the general attitude of employers in the private sector, too, in recognising that for everyone in this country there is a common interest in bringing a halt to the present inflation.

Sir G. Nabarro: I thoroughly endorse the last part of my right hon. Friend's reply, but will he now apply himself fundamentally to wage inflation and understand that if, on the old-Etonian "palsy-walsy" network, Lord Melchett has a rise from £16,000 to £25,000 a year, it is utterly impossible to convince ordinary workshop floor workers that 5 per cent. is correct?

Mr. Maudling: I still think that there is something in the principle of the rate for the job.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House at what point


the Government consider that a wage or salary settlement becomes inflationary?

Mr. Maudling: This is more a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for me, but it must be generally and mathematically obvious that an increase in money wages which goes beyond the increase in productivity inevitably gives a push to inflation.

Mr. Biffen: Reverting to the point made concerning the wage award by Chrysler (U.K.) Limited, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the size of that award is entirely within the competence of the commercial judgment of the management concerned, provided that the company does not subsequently come to the House and expect the taxpayer to bail it out of any difficulties into which it falls?

Mr. Maudling: It is certainly within its legal competence, but I should not like to comment on that award without notice.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I have drawn the right hon. Gentleman's attention in advance of today to an interesting article which he wrote in the Spectator before the election. Does he recall that in that article just before the election, he said that in all the circumstances we need to have a prices and incomes policy? I recognise that he is not proposing a statutory policy, but will he tell us why the rest of his colleagues have taken no cognisance of his important views on this matter? Or does he think that they have a prices and incomes policy, and, if so, what is it?

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell me that he has been reading my article in the Spectator. I meant to look it up but, quite honestly, I forgot. The simple fact is that the Government have a policy about both incomes and prices. It has been explained many times in the House. It is very different from the policy of the previous Administration, and will prove to be much more effective.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister if he will enumerate his responsibilities as First Lord of the Treasury.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
As the answer is somewhat lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Carter: Whatever the Answer be, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to note that certain new Members, believing the Prime Minister to have responsibilities in economic affairs, have tabled Questions to him but that these have been passed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If the Prime Minister does have responsibilities in this field, will he ensure that he answers such Questions?

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend's practice in this matter has been the same as has always been followed on Prime Minister's Questions save for the short and disastrous period when the previous Prime Minister was in charge of the economy.

Mr. Thorpe: Arising out of this Question and closely related to Question No. Q6, since the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have a policy for both prices and incomes, could he tell us, in his opinion, on which of the two they have been the more successful?

Mr. Maudling: The two must always march together.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's previous courteous remark is he aware that, as a result of the conduct of responsibilities by the former First Lord of the Treasury, we handed over to his Government a surplus of £600 million having inherited from our predecessors a deficit of over £800 million, about which the right hon. Gentleman was singularly frivolous at the time? Is not that the reason why—because the present Government do not have to face the speculative runs on sterling which were associated with an £800 million deficit—the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends can be so complacent about the economy today?

Mr. Maudling: I thought that we might get back to the £800 million, although it is almost antediluvian by now. If it be a question of comparable confidence in sterling, I recall that, only a few months after the previous Prime Minister assumed responsibility for the economy, we had a devaluation.

Following is the information:

1. The First Lord of the Treasury is one of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury and may act as such in the exercise of any of the functions of the Treasury, but does not normally do so. Under Section 2 of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1964, it is the First Lord of the Treasury who determines the annual salary of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and all holders of the office of Minister of State.
2. The First Lord of the Treasury exercises certain powers of patronage. He tenders advice to the Sovereign on appointment to the Crown livings in the Church of England. The appointments of trustees (and director) of certain museums and galleries are made by the Board of Treasury on the First Lord's recommendation. These are the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Wallace Collection, the London Museum, the Imperial War Museum and the National Maritime Museum. Similarly, the First Lord recommends for appointment by the Board of Treasury the chairman and members of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries.
3. In addition, the First Lord is an ex-officio trustee of the Duke of Wellington's Parliamentary Estates, an ex-officio trustee of the Hunterian Collection, an ex-officio member of the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851, an ex-officio Church Commissioner and an ex-officio trustee of the Duke of Grafton's Prisage Fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATIONS (OFFICIAL VISIT)

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the Government-sponsored research and development organisations.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will cause grave disquiet within Government research and development organisations as the Government have, since the election, announced various cuts in research and development within organisations which have a vital bearing on the efficiency and modernisation programmes of British industry?

Mr. Maudling: This is an important question. As the hon. Member knows, the Government are conducting a complete review of our industrial R and D activities to see what part is appropriate

to Government finance and what part should be paid for by industry.

Captain W. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Government research and development there is a great deal of flabby, useless expenditure?

Mr. Maudling: I am sure that there economies to be made. A great deal of enormously valuable work has been done. Our basic principle is that work which should and could be paid for by industry should be paid for by industry.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY (COURT OF INQUIRY)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

45. Mr. HORDERN: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the submission of evidence by the Treasury to the court of inquiry into pay in the electricity industry.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Question No. 45.
As the House knows the terms of reference of the court of inquiry appointed by my right hon. Friend referred inter alia to
the interests of the public and of the national economy
The secretary of the court of inquiry wrote to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury informing him that the court had decided that it would be helpful to it if the Treasury could submit a document to it on the significance of the dispute to the interests of the national economy, and also asked whether representatives of the Treasury would be prepared to come to a public hearing for the purpose of clarifying points arising from the written material.
A memorandum was accordingly prepared by the Treasury and with my approval submitted to the Court. Copies were placed in the House of Commons library on 15th January and, for the convenience of the House, it has been published as a Government White Paper. Treasury officials will be attending a public hearing tomorrow for the purpose of clarification.

Mr. Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country is behind


the Government in their determination to curb inflation and believes that it is right that the terms of the court of inquiry should have regard to the national interest? Is it not rather strange that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) should show such new-found enthusiasm for an incomes policy? What sort of incomes policy were his Government following six months before the General Election?

Mr. Barber: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, I am sure that he is echoing the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the nation. On the other part of his comments, no doubt in due course the right hon. Member for Stechford will explain why he changed his mind.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he decided that verbal evidence should be presented to the court by officials rather than by himself or another Treasury Minister, since the matters to be raised are bound by their very nature to be somewhat political? What instructions, for instance, has he given to officials about what they should say if comparative questions should be asked about the attitude to this claim and his own attitude to the doctors' claim during the General Election?
Secondly, will he tell the House what purpose he thinks has been served by abolishing the Prices and Incomes Board, with its experience in these matters, and setting up a special court of inquiry when two of its three members were reported yesterday as saying that they were unable to understand detailed economic arguments?

Mr. Barber: To take the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question first, the simple fact is, as I should have thought by now he would agree, that the Prices and Incomes Board was associated with what has turned out to be a discredited policy of statutory control of incomes pursued by the previous Government, which they quite rightly abandoned in the light of experience. As to the appearance of officials, there is nothing new in this. If the right hon. Gentleman recalls it, it happened at the time when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He referred to the doctors' and dentists' pay

award. He has chosen a very good example, because within the last year of the previous Government, when he was Chancellor, officials, no doubt with his approval, gave oral evidence on considerations of the national interest as they affected the pay of those particular groups.

Mr. Thorpe: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we are creating a somewhat unfortunate precedent in that civil servants are being asked to express opinions which are essentially political in front of a body which is quasi-judicial, and that it would be preferable for Ministers to give those political opinions? Since it is a quasi-judicial hearing, are we to take it that those who give evidence, from whatever quarter, will be subject to cross-examination?

Mr. Barber: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the court will decide the way in which it wishes to pursue its inquiries. It did ask that representatives of the Treasury should be made available to clarify certain points which might arise on the written evidence which had been submitted. There is nothing new in this method which we have employed. I believe it is the right one, but it is for the court to decide who it wishes to call and answer questions. If it wishes to ask me I shall be delighted to attend, as will any other Minister.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: It will be accepted by the House that officials can give evidence—they often have—within the lines laid down by Government policy and proclaimed and defended by Ministers. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the difference here is that by this evidence he is in effect laying down what is an incomes policy for the public sector in everything but name and he should answer fully for that. Are we not now in great danger of having an incomes policy in everything but name in the public sector with nothing for the private sector, which is very near to the worst of all possible worlds?

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I disagree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. The evidence was prepared by the Treasury and submitted with my approval. It is now published in a White Paper. I hope that he will take the view that it is objective evidence intended to help the court.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is in difficulty today. Later there is to be a debate in which a great many hon. and right hon. Members are interested which must finish at 7 o'clock. I have a Private Notice Question, two statements and possibly one other matter of business. I think: we must go on. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES (PAYMENT)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement as to the action he will take to secure the prompt payment of pensions, benefits and allowances, during the forthcoming interruption of postal services.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): Arrangements already announced by the Post Office provide for pension and allowance orders to continue to be cashed at post offices. People needing to claim sickness or other benefits should get in touch with their local Social Security office, or arrange for someone to do so on their behalf. My local officers will ensure that payment orders are made available for collection as quickly as possible.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Could my right hon. Friend say what those people, who will receive new order books in the next few weeks, and there are many thousands of them, should do to cash vouchers in them? Can his local offices help by making direct payments? In view of the very large number of people, many of them living near the margin, to whom this is of the greatest importance, will he consider making a Ministerial broadcast explaining what is being done?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend is quite right to be anxious about such people, but as things are at present the sub-post offices will be open and, the country has been told by the Post Office, Crown post offices will be open on two days a week for a period of hours to cash such orders. If affairs deteriorate, then the Government would be ready to give advice to the people as may appear to be necessary.

Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the post offices will be open to assist these people precisely because the trade union workers involved have taken steps to ensure that those concerned will receive their benefits?

Sir K. Joseph: I am told that announcements to that effect have been made and that is why I referred to it.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the most vulnerable groups in the community need to be protected against whatever policy the Government decide to pursue against inflation. Will he confirm that Post Office workers have agreed to co-operate as fully as possible in the payment of these sums of money to needy people? Secondly, would the right hon. Gentleman consider waiving the provision that pensions must be paid at a particular office should any local causes of hardship arise? This seems to be absolutely crucial.

Sir K. Joseph: If there is any case of hardship, the public are advised to get in touch with local Social Security offices, who will do their very best to help.

Mr. Turton: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, in many parts of the country, local Social Security offices are many miles away from pensioners and that if there is a breakdown in the machinery which gets money to sub-post offices, great hardship could arise? Will he instruct his officers to make direct calls on pensioners?

Sir K. Joseph: The visiting services of my Department will continue. I cannot guarantee to make good any lack of cash in local offices, though I will take up with my hon. right Friend the danger to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who represents a large rural area, refers.

POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement.
Officials of my Department yesterday had meetings with representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers and of the Post Office. These discussions showed


that both sides held strongly to the positions which each held when negotiations broke down.
However, in view of the serious situation, I thought it right to inform myself personally of the position, and I have therefore invited representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers and of the Post Office to meetings with me later this afternoon. I shall report to the House again tomorrow.

Mrs. Castle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement and for his promise to keep the House informed by making another statement tomorrow. May I, at the outset, inform him of how glad we are that he has yielded to the request which I made last night that he should come out of his hibernation—[Interruption.]—as the Government's conciliator, to meet the two sides?
May we have an assurance that, having met the two sides separately and having informed himself of the position, he will then go on to call them together jointly, in front of him, to explore whether there is any basis on which this strike can be averted?

Mr. Carr: I will continue to use my discretion, as it is my duty to do, as to when to see the sides in this or any other dispute, whether to see them separately or together and what to say to them. I can only assure the House that I will use that discretion without any preconceived prejudices one way or the other. I hope that the right hon. Lady will take care not to prejudice the position by, for example, inciting one side not to accept arbitration. [Interruption.]

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If this is the season for yielding, may I ask my right hon. Friend to suggest to the parties, when he meets them, that it would be sensible for them to yield to the commonsense decision of allowing an arbitrator to come in, as was laid down by the procedures, bearing in mind that one of the most dangerous things that is happening in this country today is the suggestion, fostered by people of some eminence, that we have nobody impartial enough—[Interruption.]—because they question the integrity of everybody in this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if sensible negotiations are

to occur in future, we must recognise that arbitration as voluntarily agreed is the only real way out?

Mr. Carr: I think it is better that I should, as I said, keep myself absolutely free to use my discretion as to what I say to each side and as to how I see them. However, I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that just as I will have to do this, so I am sure that the House and the country will expect both sides to keep in mind the interests of the whole community and not just their own.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the statement made yesterday by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that to grant an 8 per cent. increase would mean a 44 per cent. increase on the cost of the 5d. stamp and that if the U.P.W. claim for 15 per cent. was met in total it would mean a 92 per cent. increase in the cost of the 5d. stamp? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—and if so, will he say so—that those were fictitious figures and are considered by many experts to be absolutely ridiculous? May we be assured that they will not be submitted to any arbitration group or used in any discussions with the U.P.W. about its wage claim?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman seems to be in a helpful mood. I really believe that the House would be well advised not to enter into a discussion of this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] When it comes to any question of arbitration, I am sure that all concerned with such an arbitration inquiry will be quite capable of taking and sifting and forming a proper judgment of any evidence that may be submitted to them from whatever quarter.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my right hon. Friend explore with the parties the possibility of getting the recently agreed arbitration procedure moving and, in particular, give the details as to the problems arising in relation to the appointment of a chairman on this agreed procedure?

Mr. Carr: I assure my hon. Friend that all these things will be taken into account, but I hope that I will not be pressed on them at the moment.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: On the assumption that the Minister intends the discussions which he now proposes to have to be meaningful, may I ask him if he is aware that both the public and the postal staff generally will welcome his eleventh hour intervention? Will he keep at the forefront of his mind the fact that a long and protracted industrial postal strike would bring hardship to the community and the higher postage rates to which his right hon. Friend referred yesterday?

Mr. Carr: Of course I will bear all those things in mind, just as I shall bear in mind—and I am sure that the parties will bear this in mind, too—the fact that the greatest hardship in prospect to the community at present is the continuation of inflation.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House are anxious that there should be a settlement of this dispute? However, so that the situation may not be prejudiced, could he not prevail on his right hon. Friends to engage in a self-denying ordinance not to make prejudicial statements about the situation—[Interruption.]—by, for example, the propaganda claim of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that this would be called the "9d. letter strike"? That statement could not have been based on objective figures of any kind, because the right hon. Gentleman knew that a further 2d. on the stamp would bring in £50 million, whereas even if the claim was met in full it would involve only an additional £18 million on the offer already made. So I say to the right hon. Gentleman very seriously that it is this sort of prejudicial statement which is standing between the unions and an acceptance of arbitration. [Interruption.]

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady should remember when she asks other people to show restraint that example is better than precept.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the self-denying ordinance must begin now. The Minister said that he would make another statement tomorrow. On that basis, we must move on to the next business.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that we are probably on the eve of what may possibly be a major strike? Are you aware, considering the few minutes that we have spent questioning the Minister on this subject, that it is the custom and practice for the House to spend a little while asking questions when an important issue of this kind is raised?
I wish to represent to you the opinion that it might be advisable on this occasion to allow some other hon. Members to say a word on this matter before the Minister enters the talks which he is to have this afternoon. A matter of principle is involved here. There is a difference between informing himself and acting as the Secretary of State for Employment and trying to get the two sides together. Hon. Members should have an opportunity to get this point over to him.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker is in great difficulty in a situation like this. We have a debate which is eagerly awaited and which has to finish by 7 o'clock and in which there are many varying views to be expressed. We also have one other statement and another matter of business to come. As the Minister is to make a statement tomorrow, I must ask the House to move on.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order. Supporting as we all do your view that we should get on to the business as quickly as possible, and having regard to the fair point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), if no progress is made as a result of the Minister's meetings this afternoon or early this evening, will the Minister undertake to make a statement to the House on the interruption of business at 7 o'clock at the end of the three-hour debate so that the House may question him on it and, if necessary, press him to further activity? If the Minister makes no statement tonight, and if no progress has been made, the strike will go ahead. If he were to make such an offer now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the whole House would strongly support your desire that progress be made.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. I certainly note what the right


hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said. There is some difficulty in the proposition which he puts forward, in that I understand that my right hon. Friend will be pursuing discussions with both sides and may not be in a position to make a statement. He has promised one tomorrow and I think that is the best basis on which we can leave it at the present time.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will consider what has been said. I hope he will. He is sometimes quite flexible about these matters. He will recognise that there is all the difference in the world between a statement at 7 o'clock tonight and a statement tomorrow. If the Secretary of State cannot make a statement at 7 o'clock, will he make it at an appropriate time on an interruption of business, which is perfectly easy in Committee at any time later in the evening? Even then it might not be too late to avert the situation which the whole House wants to avert.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. I once again note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It would be quite wrong for me, in view of the various discussions which my hon. Friend will have, to make any commitment of that sort at this time. I think I am right in saying that I certainly note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

SCOTLAND (AGRICULTURAL SERVICES)

The Secretary of Slate for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about proposed changes in certain agricultural services in Scotland.—[Interruption.] The advisory services in Scotland are the responsibility of the three independent agricultural colleges grant-aided by my Department

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Scottish business should surely be treated with the same respect as English business.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly hope it will be.

Mr. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In addition to farm advice they

are concerned with development work and also with higher agricultural education where they have close links with the universities. This system has worked well, but we need better co-ordination and economy of effort.
As regards the advisory side of the colleges' work, my general aim will be to secure savings in present expenditure by placing greater emphasis on cost-effectiveness and selectivity in the services provided to farmers and by introducing, where appropriate, a system of charging for certain specific services but not for general advice. The responsibility for implementing changes of this character rests on the governing bodies of the colleges and there will be full consultation with them and with other interested organisations.
Turning to development, with the agreement of the governing bodies of the colleges, I have now decided to establish a new three-college body, to be called the Scottish Agricultural Development Council, which will direct and co-ordinate this work in Scotland and enable the three colleges to work more closely together. Membership of the council will, in the main, be drawn from the colleges but will also include other interests concerned with agricultural improvement, and I have particularly in mind the research institutes. The council will be a small planning and directing organisation, with the colleges or other organisations as appropriate carrying out the projects and programmes. There will be further consultation with the governing bodies before the council is set up later this year. This new body will replace the former Scottish Agricultural Improvement Council and its subcommittees which had a purely advisory rôle.
As regards other services, I have decided that grants for the destruction of rabbits and other pests should be discontinued, but in order to allow the rabbit clearance societies to consider the implications, grant will be paid on approved expenditure up to 30th September of this year. Grants to fox destruction clubs will be continued. Arrangements for enforcement of pest control and for control of food infestation will be simplified. Advisory and publicity work on pests will be considerably curtailed.
I also propose to discontinue the appointment of agricultural executive committees. This will require legislation. The committees have given good service over a long period, but it is possible now to make simpler arrangements to carry out their remaining functions. I intend that certain of the advisory and review functions of the committees should be undertaken by a single advisory body, to be constituted by extending the membership and functions of the existing consultative panel which at present is concerned only with the Winter Keep Scheme. In the past the committees have under statute been consulted by the local planning authority on planning proposals. I shall now ask local planning authorities to ensure that during the framing of the planning proposals they maintain close liaison with the local staffs of the Department of Agriculture who have assisted agricultural executive committees in the past.

Mr. Ross: It will be obvious to the House that in the statement made by the Secretary of State no figure has been given in respect of either savings or staff. This follows from the fact that the first statement that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been allowed to make is based on the acceptance of a philosophy completely alien to Scottish tradition and consequently inappropriate to what is required in Scotland.
Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what effect his announcement will have on the advisory work which has been the basis of the growing efficiency of Scottish agriculture of which we have hitherto been so proud? Will he tell us how he relates cost effectiveness to the saving of £72,000 a year on rabbit clearance societies which cover 4 million acres in Scotland, and what he is doing about pest control?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only one part of his statement is not in keeping with what was said yesterday, and that is the part dealing with the organisation of research in Scottish colleges? Is he aware that when I was Secretary of State I continued to resist this proposition for the simple reason—as he said at the beginning of his statement—that the colleges were independent agricultural colleges. How can they be inde-

pendent agricultural colleges when their research programme, scientific staffing and so on will be dominated by a new executive body, the Scottish Agricultural Development Council? I regret that this announcement was included in his statement, which had nothing to do with the matter but was a trailer of the statement which was made yesterday.

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman said that this was the first statement that I had been allowed to make, but I made one last week. In the parliamentary time I have been in office I have answered about twice as many oral Questions as the right hon. Gentleman did in an equivalent period of time. The only statement which he made during that period was an apology to the House for a mistake which had been made by his Department.
Because the advisory services come under the colleges and not under the Department, I cannot quantify savings before consultations with the colleges. In respect of the rest of my statement, I expect a saving of about £100,000. Other savings being made administratively in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, and savings in the capital grants scheme, will amount to nearly £1 million.
Rabbit clearance societies have been doing very effective work, and most of them have been extremely successful. Where they are successful it is in the farmers' interests that they should continue with the work they are doing. They do not need a grant to help them with this. The pump-priming has already been done.
In my Department about 20 posts will be saved as a result of this statement. The advisory services are not staffed by civil servants, so these are not included. In this figure I expect a further saving of 20 posts from other administrative action which I am taking.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: As my right hon. Friend's statement is based on Cmnd. 4564, which was presented to the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will he, as the Minister responsible in Scotland for fisheries, give the House a categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatever


of repealing Section 1 of the Fishing Limits Act, 1964?

Mr. Campbell: As my hon. Friend knows, arrangements for agriculture are entirely different in Scotland and, therefore, my statement today is complementary to but not included in my right hon. Friend's White Paper of yesterday. I did not touch on fisheries today, but in answer to a Question on 17th December it was announced that my right hon. Friend and I are not proposing to make changes at present in the machinery and organisation of support for the fishing industry.

Mr. Baxter: In view of the length of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and its grave implications for the agricultural industry, should not this matter be debated either on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee? I ask him to consult the Leader of the House to see if time can be allowed for a debate.

Mr. Campbell: My right hon. Friend will take note of what has been said, as I do. Since the myth that I have been silent has been fabricated by the Opposition, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acquits me of this and mentions the length of my statement.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only this morning the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was castigating his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education for speaking too much? It seems that we can never please him. On the question of cost effectiveness and the provision of advice—which is a nice word—will my right hon. Friend say how the cost effectiveness actually works?

Mr. Campbell: We shall consult the colleges about this matter. I can assure my hon. Friend that, for example, advice on crofting in the North of Scotland will continue, but there will be a review of the effectiveness of advice of all kinds for farms.

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Scottish colleges have welcomed the pressure he proposes to put on them to alter their present successful pattern of advice? If he has not yet consulted them, it is shocking that he should produce this

statement without first having found out whether they wish to change their pattern of advice. Secondly, has the Secretary of State pointed out to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture a curious aspect of Tory philosophy, which is to tell farmers to depend more on the market and then to cancel the grants for the Agricultural Market Development Research Council which is doing research into how better to use the market and whose work in Scotland on seed, potatoes, calves, and vegetable marketing has helped farmers in marketing their produce. Is it not folly to say that farmers should depend more on the market and then stop research on marketing?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has the hypothesis wrong. This has been discussed with the colleges and they have agreed to and welcomed the establishment of the development council. We are proposing a rationalisation of the advisory services which the colleges will continue to give. The hon. Gentleman suggests that various forms of technical advice may be discontinued. This is not so. Some advice will continue and the general advice will be free.

Mr. Gray: The Secretary of State will be aware that in the Highlands of Scotland the rabbit clearance societies have performed an extremely important function. Since the cost of subsidising these societies is only £12,000 a year, would my hon. Friend consider using his influence so as to allow the Highlands and Islands Development Board to take over this annual figure?

Mr. Campbell: As I said earlier, the rabbit clearance societies have been very effective in most of the work they have done, and I am glad my hon. Friend agrees, but I doubt whether the sum of money he mentioned is necessary in order that their good work should continue. It is in the farmers' interest to keep down the rabbit population. I shall continue to enforce my responsibility for ensuring that occupiers keep down rabbits if they increase to a great extent.

Mr. Buchan: Would the Secretary of State now answer my hon. Friend's question as to whether the colleges discussed the new rôle they will have to play in regard to their advisory capacity in relation to charges; and, if they were consulted, what was their attitude? Secondly,


has he considered the effects this action will have on the traditional rôle of the colleges in research, teaching and advice, because he is now beginning to push colleges into a financial and administrative rôle? What is the attitude of the colleges in that respect? Having consulted the colleges, will he issue a White Paper so that this whole sorry business can be discussed in full?

Mr. Campbell: It is not a sorry business. Discussions have taken place with the colleges and are continuing. Charges are a matter for further consultation with the colleges—

An Hon. Member: Will they be announced?

Mr. Campbell: I will announce the charges, but the services themselves and the manner in which this will be done are matters for consultation. I thought that since this involved a matter of principle these were all matters about which the House would wish to be informed at an early stage. This I have done.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: These are very important matters, but other ways must be found of pursuing them.

HON. MEMBER FOR FERMANAGH AND SOUTH TYRONE

Miss Devlin: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the imprisonment yesterday in one of Her Majesty's prisons of an hon. Member of this House for activities not considered criminal in Great Britain.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is an urgent debate due to come before the House and that many Members are anxious to take part. Therefore, I shall attempt to be as brief as possible.
There are two main points of urgent public importance at stake. One is that this is the second hon. Member of this House to be imprisoned in the North of Ireland and, given the situation there at the moment, where it is necessary for two members of the Cabinet to go to the North of Ireland to try to find a solution

to the present situation, the imprisonment for six months of yet one more representative of the people of Northern Ireland is bound to lead only to further disorder, particularly in an area where as yet there has been no disorder.
The second point I wish to put forward, without bearing on the rights or wrongs of the matter, is that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), who is the Member in question, has been imprisoned at Crumlin for six months for an offence which is not a criminal offence in this country, namely, taking part in a demonstration and in the organisation of that public demonstration. Secondly, that person has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, whereas when that particular law in Northern Ireland has been broken on hundreds of other occasions the average penalty imposed has been no more than a £20 fine.
There are therefore two points at stake: first, peace in Northern Ireland; and, secondly, how much longer the Imperial Parliament of this country will stand by and watch legal corruption in the British Isles.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the imprisonment yesterday in one of Her Majesty's prisons of an hon. Member of this House for activities not considered criminal in Great Britain.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. Member and what she has said today, but I have to rule that the hon. Lady's submission does not fall within the provision of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit the application to the House.

Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order. Could I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, if you would be prepared to give this matter further consideration? The position of an hon. Member who


is in prison and his rights as a Member of Parliament are basically involved, and Members in all parts of the House must be concerned. On that broader aspect—the hon. Member's rights to carry on as a duly sworn Member of this House—would you be prepared to give this matter further consideration and give a further Ruling tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put his point of order. I ruled in regard to what has happened today. The House will be aware of a recent report by the Committee of Privileges about these matters. I should like right hon. and hon. Members to consider that and then to take what action they think appropriate in the future. So far as today is concerned, I have made my decision.

Mr. Fitt: Further to the point of order. In view of the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, may be ignorant of all the circumstances attached to this case, particularly the fact that many people in Northern Ireland have broken the same law and have been given a minimum penalty, namely, a fine, would you not consider that, if evidence is produced to you during the course of this evening or early tomorrow morning, it would enable you to come to a more equitable decision?

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical proposition which I should be very wrong to rule upon. I have made my decision. It is not debatable and no point of order arises upon it.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the fact that you are going to give continued thought to the problem, could we return now to the Scottish business that was interrupted?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to that is simply, no.

Later—

Mr. Heffer: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for holding up the House. It is a matter of grave importance that an hon. Member of this House can be put in prison for six months without the House having an opportunity to discuss the situation, particularly as it is now developing in Northern Ireland. May I now appeal to the

Leader of the House to consider giving this House the opportunity of an early debate on the whole question of Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the hon. Member who has now been put in prison?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a relevant supplementary question during the Business Statement on a Thursday. I can accept no more points of order arising out of my decision today.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. May I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker? Tomorrow I understand the House will be debating the European Economic Community on the Motion, That this House do now adjourn. Since hon. Members are deeply concerned about other matters than the Common Market. I take it that it would be in order for any hon. Member, either tomorrow or on Thursday, if he catches your eye, to introduce those other matters. Although we would not challenge your Ruling, and it would be improper to do so, in regard to Standing Order No. 9, would it be in order for hon. Members to raise such other matters as they think proper on the Motion, That this House do now adjourn?

Mr. Speaker: I will not rule on any particular speech until I have heard it, but what the hon. Member says is accurate: that it is the convention of the House that anything can be raised on the Adjournment. This is a matter in which the House must impose its own discipline. There are many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to debate the Common Market. I will not make a hypothetical Ruling. We must wait and see what happens.

CARLISLE AND DISTRICT STATE MANAGEMENT SCHEME

Mr. Ron Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have not given you notice of the matter which I wish to raise. I wish to raise a point of order on a matter of great concern so far as my constituency and its people are concerned. Over the weekend a number of statements appeared in various newspapers regarding the future of the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme. I received telephone calls


from journalists from various parts of the country asking if I had any comments to make. I replied that I had no statement, other than what I had read in newspapers. I was assured by the journalists that this question would be answered and decided on Tuesday in the House of Commons.
When I arrived here yesterday, I searched through the Order Paper and no such Question was down regarding the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme. I immediately placed on the Order Paper a Question, which is Written Question No. 73. My information is that at 3.30 today the Home Office released a statement regarding the whole future of the management scheme, and since I have been in the House I have been asked for my comments and I do not even know what it is all about.
Surely in a matter of great concern to my constituency, this should have been dealt with on the Floor of the House and not raised with the newspapers. Is this not another typical example of this Government overriding democracy in every way? I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Home Secretary should have come to the Dispatch Box to answer a Question on this matter. I assure you that many people in my constituency will take a dim view of the way they are being treated by this Government.

Mr. Peart: Further to that point of order. Is the House aware that this matter is not just confined to Carlisle? The

State Management Scheme extends down into South Cumberland, including my own constituency, it covers a large section of the constituency of the Leader of the House, and also parts of Scotland. Therefore, it is an important matter involving great State assets and the livelihood of many people. Is this not an odd way to deal with the matter? Would it not have been better to have had a proper statement on the matter, since the Home Secretary is now on the bench? This is no way to treat the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman have made their points. This is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am ruling on this matter at the moment. The point has been made, the Home Secretary has heard it, and there are various ways in which these matters can be pursued.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,

That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Rossi.]

ANIMALS BILL [Lords]

Ordered,

That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY] [First Part],—considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. pym.]

Orders of the Day — RUDI DUTSCHKE

4.20 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am sure that there would be a lot of gratitude if the House did adjourn—certainly before we got to the Industrial Relations Bill—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—because it is irrelevant to the problems with which it purports to deal. I will not go into that matter now. I have never known so much time wasted by the House on a Measure so irrelevant. But that is another question.
What we wish to raise on this Adjournment Motion is the handling by, and the policy of, the Home Secretary in relation to the refusal to allow Mr. Dutschke to remain in this country as a student. We hope to get a satisfactory explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of his reasons and of his policy on these matters.
A number of people say, "Why bother? Why waste the time of the House with an obscure, or not so obscure, student who holds extremist views, is very unpopular, clearly commands very little support, and to whom we owe no hospitality?"It is a view which has been expressed to me in a number of letters. However, I think that it misunderstands both the nature of the British tradition and the nature and quality of our democracy. If a simple issue like this, as it is regarded, is to be dismissed without taking up the time of the House, even if it is thought to be important—I believe that it is important—then, in a time when standards are faltering, when a number of our traditions are being undermined—a number of them very desirable traditions—we should be taking one more step on a path which would lead downwards, not upwards.
It is important to go back to what the Home Secretary gave as his reasons

for excluding Mr. Dutschke, when he ORDERS OF THE DAY was asked as long ago as last August, especially in view of the developments which have taken place since and all the other new issues which have been introduced.
The Home Secretary, on 25th August, in turning him down, said:
Jim made it a condition of his admission"—
that is, Dutschke's admission—
that he should refrain from political activities and I should certainly not be prepared to withdraw any such condition. But I frankly do not believe that it is a satisfactory condition to make in any but the most exceptional circumstances. I think it is wrong in principle that people who come to this country should do so on the basis that they refrain from any activities which are lawful for the ordinary citizen. Nor do I think in practice that such a condition could be enforced. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot agree that Mr. Dutschke should now continue to reside in this country as a student.
As I understand that, the Home Secretary was saying that it was not satisfactory to require him to refrain from political activities, that it was wrong in principle, that it could not be enforced, and, therefore, he could not agree to him remaining.
That was the major issue which arose at that time. There was a subsidiary reason: that, as he is now fit enough to undertake full-time study, it is reasonable to conclude that his period of convalescence is complete and we should put a term to his stay in this country for that purpose.
Those were the only two reasons which were adduced at that time: first, that it was wrong, except in the most exceptional circumstances, to try to exact an undertaking of this kind; and, secondly, that it was unenforceable; and, subsidiary to that, that his convalescence was now complete.
Did the right hon. Gentleman have any other reasons at that time? If so, it would have been more open and frank if he had exposed them. Did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind that the nation's security was at stake—the very procedure which he has invoked—because he did not say a word about it? The right hon. Gentleman did not even say that Dutschke had failed to observe the conditions which had been laid down. I really find myself wondering—I must put this to the Home Secretary, and I


expect a candid answer from him—why he did not at that time say that in his view the security of the nation was involved and that Dutschke had failed to observe the conditions.
Even if the right hon. Gentleman says that he did not want to raise the first question—I can understand the arguments, though I should not think that they were right, and I do not agree with them—it would have been more frank to say to those sponsoring Mr. Dutschke's entry, "This man has not observed his condition." But the Home Secretary did not say that. The nearest he got to it was to say that in practice such a condition could not be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman did not say, "And, what is more, he has not endeavoured to abide by it."
As far as I can see, this fact is hotly disputed. I shall argue in a moment that in my view—these are matters of judgment—Dutschke broadly kept to his undertaking. [Interruption.] If the argument is that he did not, then I should have expected him to be warned about it. I should have expected somebody to have said to those sponsoring him, "Look here, this man is having discussions in his study on political questions. He is sitting quietly at a meeting. We regard this as going beyond the bounds of the undertaking which he gave. If he is going to stay here, he should observe strictly the requirements which were laid down."
But not a word was said—[Interruption.] I will come to my part later. There is no reason why I should not. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say anything, no doubt he will.
That is the first question that I want to raise. I ask the Home Secretary clearly: on what grounds is he standing in refusing this man permission to study here?
Many people do not need any grounds or reasons. They just want to rely upon their prejudices. I have had letters from them. There are those for whom it is sufficient that Dutschke is a German or, as they more usually say, a Hun, and, therefore, he should not be allowed to remain in this country.
There are those who say that he is a student. That clearly condemns him out of hand—and a student who wants to

study here clearly has committed a double error.
Then there is the—I should not dignify it by the word "argument"—prejudice that is exposed in some correspondence, "He is keeping our boys out of university. It is wrong that a German foreign student should keep a British boy out of a university."
Then there are those for whom it is sufficient to say—it is getting nearer to an argument, but it is basically a prejudice—"The man holds extremist views. We owe him nothing. Let him get out."
Then there are those who say, "We are in national danger. Our traditions are in danger of being undercut. Our values are being undermined. We do not want this man here to continue that process. Therefore, Dutschke should go."
The Home Secretary has given some countenance to this by using the procedure of hearing part of the case in camera and involving the security of the nation. I would never accuse the right hon. Gentleman of beginning to get anywhere near a smear. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to smear the man, but he made a basic mistake in his handling of this case by introducing the state of the nation's security. It gives rise to all those who say, "The Home Secretary knows. There is never smoke without fire. There is much more to this than we think. He has involved the national security." It is that which is opened up by this reference.
Where does the Home Secretary stand in this gallery? Does he espouse any of these particular reasons or prejudices which my correspondents have adduced to me as the reasons for not allowing this man to stay here? It is a pretty odoriferous brew when one adds it up compounded by a mixture of hatred of foreigners and dislike of students. That is what it comes to. Some people will get an awful shock if the Government get their way and we go into the Common Market. Just think of all those foreigners we shall then have trampling over us throughout the counties and villages of this country.
What is the Home Secretary's attitude? We will hear later. I gather that one of the right hon. Gentleman's complaints,


so it is said by the newspapers in the kind of statements which we get, is that he feels that his case has not been fully deployed, although those who are opposed to him have had their full say. I have seen that said more than once in the Press. I understand what he means after listening to the Attorney-General in the Tribunal, when I heard him floundering as he did. There is no other word to describe the manner in which he dealt with Mr. Dutschke. I think that the Home Secretary has a point, and he now has the opportunity of making the case which has failed to be made before. I hope that he will take advantage of this opportunity to explain it. I understand his policy, but I find his handling of the matter unsatisfactory.
The Chief Whip is sitting there looking as innocent as a new born babe. Was he responsible for the statement that the Whips were rubbing their hands at the prospect of a debate on this issue? Do they know something which the rest of us do not know? I understand that they do not, and I am glad to hear that. I should regard it as surprising if they did, but why are they rubbing their hands? Is it because they want to cash in on the anti-foreign feeling, the xenophobia, that exists beneath the surface in many people in this country? Do they want to do the job which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) did on race? Let hon. Gentlemen opposite know of the passions and prejudice which they are arousing on this matter, especially by their intolerant handling of it, and the Attorney-General did nothing in his intervention in the Tribunal to allay those feelings.
Having gone very carefully into the facts, I do not know how much more we shall learn this afternoon about Mr. Dutschke and his activities, but I think the Home Secretary must take note of the fact that we shall learn a great deal about him. We shall learn what is his attitude and his approach to this issue. We shall learn, and it is important that we should learn, what is his future policy on these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman will have received a letter, as I have, signed by a number of. I hardly dare say it, students at Cambridge, who write to say that they have always associated the idea of

tolerance of different political views with the United Kingdom and they ask the Home Secretary
to make explicit the limits and conditions imposed upon foreign students with respect to political association, discussion, and other political activities.
They go on to say:
We hope that before Parliament enacts new legislation governing the entry and continued residence of foreign students you will encourage and participate in the widest possible discussion of it.
That is signed by a group of students from many countries—Canada, France, the United States, Australia, Finland, Sierre Leone, Japan, Jordan, South Africa, Israel, Argentina, and so on.
Perhaps they ought not to be here at all, and there are many people who think that they should not. There are about 24,000 foreign students studying in this country, but are any conditions laid down for them? I expect and hope to hear the Home Secretary say "No". We are, however, entitled to expect a certain reticence from foreign students living in this country in relation to our domestic affairs and there would be.

An Hon. Member: What about Tariq Ali?

Mr. Callaghan: He is not a foreigner. He is a Commonwealth student who is registered as a British citizen, but that is another question. I am referring to foreign students who come here. We are entitled to expect a certain reticence from them. I do not dispute that but, in relation to what they do at their universities, and because they traditionally associate this country with tolerance, I should not expect any interference with their activities at university.
I remember that the first time I went to the Oxford Union I found that an American was president. I never had the good fortune to go there as a student—if it was bad fortune not to go there. The next time it was an Indian who was president. These students take an active part in our political affairs, and many of them hold different offices at our universities. What is to be the principle? We must return to this. The Home Secretary is nodding. He should tell us again whether the traditional view which has been observed in this matter will continue in relation to these foreign students.


I do not suppose that it will be altered at all, but it is going to make a little more difficult this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman's explanation why he refuses to allow Mr. Dutschke to stay here if there is to be no alteration in our traditional approach to these matters.

Sir John Langford-Holt: Is it not a fact that it was the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Home Secretary, who placed conditions upon this gentleman's right to stay in this country?

Mr. Callaghan: It is a slightly more complicated question than that.

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Callaghan: I have listened to the hyena-like voices of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the last 25 years, and they get no prettier as time goes on. What happened was that when Mr. Dutschke's sponsors wrote to me originally they offered that he would not take part in political activities, and in the reply that I made I accepted the offer that had been made by him. In other words, I did not exact a condition from him. There is something to be said for the point of view that it is difficult to exact a condition from someone that he will not take part in political activities. The borderline is so difficult to draw. But if somebody volunteers to abstain from political activities, that is not such a difficult matter. After all, 95 per cent. of the people of this country abstain for five years from any political activity at all except for putting a cross on a ballot paper. They find no difficulty in abstaining, and if there is a voluntary abstenance, it is not difficult to carry out.
Mr. Dutschke came here on medical grounds, and because he was being harassed by the Press and by photographers in the country in which he was staying. He was a seriously wounded man who was pretty close to death at the time. I believe that allowing him in was a compassionate measure, and I hope that no one will disagree—I know that the Home Secretary does not—with allowing him in for medical treatment, for which he paid. I have had letters saying what a disgraceful thing it is that Mr. Dutschke should have been treated under the National Health Service. Let me make it clear that he paid his own medical bills for the treatment that he received.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: If there had been no medical grounds for Dutschke's coming to this country, and if he had applied to come here as a student in the first place, would the right hon. Gentleman have allowed him in?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a hypothetical question. I do not know what the answer would have been, but I think that my answer at that stage would have been "No". Does that surprise hon. Gentlemen opposite? I think that my answer would have been "No", and I mean "No". But what has happened—and this is a material point which the Home Office ought to take into account, and always does take into account—is that the man has lived here quietly for two years. He has broken no law. There is a difference of opinion about this, but in my view Dutschke's keeping broadly within the terms which he had laid down for himself creates a different situation. This is a hypothetical question. I do not know what would have been my answer. I am being as honest as I can with the hon. Gentleman.
If, without any knowledge of the man, just knowing what had happened, if he had not been wounded, if he had not needed medical attention, and so on, I had been asked to allow him in I should probably have said, "No, we do not need you, thank you very much. There are many competitors for our universities". But that is not the position today, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. The effluxion of time creates different conditions. That is my view, and we ought to look at the position differently, although I always made it clear that we had no moral obligation to keep him when he wanted to change his status.
The right hon. Gentleman was ready to continue to allow him to remain here as a convalescent, but not to study. That is a difference which I find difficult to sustain.

Mr. David Lane: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: This is a very short debate.

Hon. Members: Give way. The hon. Member is from Cambridge.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not care a damn whether he is from Cambridge or Oxford—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. There is widespread interest in this debate, but it does not help when interruptions of this kind take place.

Mr. Callaghan: I was educated in a secondary school, and that seems as good as Cambridge in these matters. That has nothing to do with it: the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I must pursue what I have to say on this. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote from the report, he will be able to quote it in his own speech later on, I hope.
In my view, what has happened is this: Dutschke has kept his undertakings. The Tribunal did not define what his undertakings were, but they took rather a different view. They said:
It is clear from the Appellant's evidence that he has had meetings and discussions with a wide variety of people involved in political activities, some of whom he had not met before; some were British nationals, others were from overseas, who came to consult him, in his view quite naturally, when they visited Britain.
I would ask, is to have discussions with people involved in political activities a political activity or a social activity? This is really the sort of level at which the Tribunal is arguing. I do not think that this is terribly important, the distinction between the two—this is the narrower point which I am now on—but I know that this is what the hon. Gentleman and others want to raise.
But it seems to me that, if the Tribunal did not define it any more closely than it did, we are not entitled to pay the respect to it that I do to the Tribunal on some other matters on which it expresses its views. It goes on:
In our view these meetings and associations have far exceeded normal social activities and. whatever his intentions may have been, he did not abide by the assurance given by him and on his behalf not to engage in political activities.
I wonder about that, I really do. I find it difficult to believe that whether a man stays here or goes should depend on whether he has been having political talks in his rooms or in his house. I regard political activity as a much more active pursuit than that, I must say. Otherwise, there would be plenty of people engaged in politics. What were his intentions? I notice that the Tribunal put in this qualification—"whatever his intentions may have been".
There is one item that I came across by accident the other day when looking through my cuttings which is illustrative of his intentions, and goes back as far as 7th January 1970. He was asked to join the editorial board of Black Dwarf. He did not make any public statement himself but the board did. Indeed, it was that dreadful character—as the hon. Member would probably view it—Tariq Ali, who said:
He has now considered the situation carefully and has decided that the legal conditions on which he was allowed to enter Britain do not permit him to take part in any political activity. Though he regards 'Black Dwarf' very favourably, he must therefore decline to come on to the editorial board.
[Interruption.] What I think hon. Members find it easy to confuse is their dislike of Black Dwarf, which they are entitled to have, and the evidence of his intentions.
It is quite clear that, on this count, having been asked to join the board in January, 1970, he said that this in his view conflicted with the legal conditions on which he was allowed to land. Is not that some evidence of intentions? It would have been more in accordance with our traditions if the man had been warned, if it was thought that he was exceeding what was regarded as the normal social activity to which he had undertaken to limit himself. So I hold the view that we are departing from a tradition which we have established for some time.
But I want to put this to the Home Secretary. Is it the fact that he departed, or is alleged to have departed, from the promise which he gave when he came here not to engage in political activities which is the reason for getting rid of him? Is that regarded as good enough? If so, perhaps the Home Secretary would say why. Why does he think that taking part in political discussion, however revolutionary it may have been, however childish it may have been, however ineffective it may have been, makes it necessary to get rid of the man? Is it that he had political discussions or is it that the Home Secretary does not like his views? Which is it?
I believe that, if this man held different views, we might not have heard so much about the case as we have done so far. I do not like his views. I do not wish


to go into this, but no hon. Member would assume that I would agree with practically anything which Mr. Dutschke had to say on these matters I do not think that is the issue. I would regret it very much if hon. Gentlemen opposite try to make that the issue. I think that the issue is broader and wider than that—the traditions of this country.
So I take the view that it is not a sufficient reason for getting rid of him, without even a warning, to say, "You have been having discussions about these matters or have been attending meetings" He was not taking any active part, so far as I know.
Second, what is clear from the Tribunal's report is that his activities were in no sense a danger to the nation. What was their careful phrase—
Up to the present time, the presence of the appellant in this country has constituted no appreciable danger to national security."?
I do not know what anyone wants to make out of that, but a more unlikely spy I never saw.
I agree with the Tribunal: there has been no danger in what he has done since he has been here. Nor, I would add, is there any likelihood of it. So why did the Home Secretary introduce this question of the nation's safety? It has been found that the man did not transgress. We know why those words were put in. They were not to deal with a case like this or with that of a man caught in flagrante delicto, but with the case of an agent who may land here deliberately to challenge the authorities, so that he could try to establish in open court what was known about him by the security services if they tried to get rid of him. It was not to deal with a miserable case like this.
I complained about the Home Secretary introducing this issue in this way. It was a political decision. The Home Secretary on 25th August made it clear that it was a political decision. He may have been right or he may have been wrong, but I wish that he had stuck to it and not brought in this other question.
Dutschke wanted peace and quiet when he came here. He may be unlikeable, his views may be repugnant to many hon. Gentlemen, he may show no sense of gratitude or understanding of our way of life, he may wish to use this country

as no more than a staging post—but none of that is sufficient reason for refusing to allow him to stay here as a student. That is the difference between us; that is my view, and it is important to state it.
It may be said that we owe him no hospitality, that he has no claim on us. That is quite correct: we owe him no hospitality and he has no claim upon us. Nevertheless, he was here and he lived here quietly and had not broken our laws. In my view, it would have been more in keeping with our traditions if we had allowed him to stay here with his wife and family.
I draw a clear distinction between this man and Dr. Hoch, who took part in those disgraceful scenes at the London School of Economics last year—an American student who was here, who was found guilty by the court and properly expelled by the Home Secretary. That was quite right. But if democracy cannot stand argument, if it cannot stand the expression of a contrary view, if our institutions are now so enfeebled that we have to deport a man who has done nothing to break our laws, so much the worse for us. I take a much more robust view of the health of British democracy.
Has the cause of democracy been strengthened by shutting Dutschke out? France shut him out. He is not allowed there. Does anyone believe that democracy in France is stronger than it is in this country? Is it to be argued that we strengthen our cause when we shut out a man like this from this country? Our strength lies in a democracy countering a man's arguments and not trying to shut them out.
The Times did us all a service when it published that full interview with him. When I saw his views set out there I could think of few arguments that would encourage me to accept what he had to say.
Nevertheless, I take the view that a democracy is entitled to take undemocratic action to preserve itself if the threat is at the gates. I firmly believe that a democracy cannot sit back and allow itself to be raped and destroyed by those who merely wish to use it.
Having said that, it must be accepted that nobody really believes that we are now at that stage. Our parliamentary system is under attack. It always is.


There is a good deal of cynicism and talk of extra-parliamentary activity nowadays, but there always has been.
If anybody really wants to measure the strength of the revolutionary movement in this country, he should examine the handful of questions which the Attorney-General put to Rudi Dutschke—for reasons that are not quite clear to me—about his visit to Swansea, when he passed the steelworks at Llanwern[Interruption]—and I have no doubt that he passed the works at Port Talbot as well.
He was going to stay with an international revolutionary Socialist—[Laughter.]—and he wanted to meet some strikers at Port Talbot. This revolutionary Socialist had to tell him, "I do not know any". He had said that he wanted to meet them to discuss the sociological implications of strikers' motives in this country. Whether or not he did I do not know, but what a picture it paints of the revolutionary nature of British workers at Port Talbot.
Are we really saying that when the Left is so fractured and splintered that it could not even raise one striker for him to talk to at Port Talbot, we must get rid of Rudi Dutschke because he is a danger to our national security?
Parliament has been under attack and perhaps it is under attack more than for some time. However, we have no right—in my view we are betraying democracy and our past—to behave as the Government are behaving now—with all the reactions of a nervous and frightened tabby pussy cat.

4.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I shall compress my remarks as much as possible, though I know that the House will wish me to deal with this case thoroughly. I will do so myself because, first, this case has been the subject of the Tribunal and, then, I thought I should speak first in Parliament; I have not been able to put my side of the matter in public.
As I understand that the Opposition intend to divide the House on the issue that my decision was wrong, let us be clear about why I took it and what it was.
In late 1968, Mr. Dutschke was in Italy, where he had moved after the shooting incident in Berlin. On 25th October, 1968, somebody applied on his behalf for him to come to this country to consult a specialist. It was also suggested that he would like to undertake translation work and study at a university. It was volunteered on his behalf that he would not engage in political activities if he were admitted.
My predecessor agreed that he should come here for one month for medical consultations. His admission would be on the clear understanding that he would not engage in political activities and that he, the right hon. Gentleman, did not agree that Mr. Dutschke should engage in a course of post-graduate study at a British university. There was a little uncertainty when the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to questions at one stage, referred to what he had said on being asked whether Mr. Dutschke could engage in a course at a British university. In any event, the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not agree to his studying here.
What were the stringent conditions? They were no doubt imposed in the light of his political activities, and the nature of those activities, and his open advocacy of the use of force for political ends, which had already caused him to be declared inadmissible not only to France but to Holland as well.
Mr. Dutschke was admitted to the United Kingdom on this basis, which he freely accepted, in December, 1968. In January, 1969, my predecessor was asked to allow Mr. Dutschke to stay here for a further six months for convalescence on the continued understanding that he would not engage in political activities. This was granted, as was another six months' extension in July, 1969, on the same basis as before. It was clearly accepted on each occasion that Mr. Dutschke was willing to abide by the original conditions.
In January, 1970, somebody wrote to my predecessor raising the question of Mr. Dutschke's taking a university course. This, it was accepted, would involve a change in the original conditions. My predecessor told him that he would allow Mr. Dutschke a further extension on the same basis as before and that if he wished


for a further extension to go to university, he should let the Home Office have full particulars.
Permission to stay here as a student would, of course, mean a change of status, and my predecessor made it quite clear that he could not, at that stage, say what the decision would be. This was my predecessor's last word on the case. At no time did he release Mr. Dutschke from the original condition that he would not be allowed to study at a university.
On 13th July, 1970, somebody wrote to me on his behalf hoping that I would agree that Mr. Dutschke should be allowed to stay in this country for the purpose of studying at a university, a clear change from the original conditions. I replied that I could not agree. I did not think that a condition of refraining from political activity was in principle desirable, or in practice enforceable for a long stay. That is my answer to what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said about the activities of students in this country and whether, when they are here, they should be allowed to enter into political activities.
If a man cannot be trusted to take part in political activities while he is here, why should he be trusted to be here at all? Political activities cannot be satisfactorily defined. They range from attending political meetings or making speeches to planning or even perpetrating violence for political ends. And if proof is needed that such a condition is unenforceable in practice, this lies clearly to be seen in the Report of the Tribunal.

Mr. Callaghan: If a man perpetrates violence, is not the proper course to bring him before the courts? That has nothing to do with this procedure.

Mr. Maudling: Naturally. I am saying that political activity in modern conditions ranges over a very wide spectrum, and I shall return to this subject later.
I was not—any more than my predecessor was prepared to do—prepared to agree that Mr. Dutschke should reside here with full freedom to engage in political activities. Mr. Dutschke then exercised his right to appeal against my refusal to allow him to become a student. Under the Act of 1969 and the Aliens Appeals Order made under it, a special

panel of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal had been set up to hear any cases where the decision was taken in the interests of national security or on grounds of a political nature.
This was clearly a case of the kind covered by these provisions. What other reasons could there have been, from the beginning, for insisting on the condition that Mr. Dutschke should not stay here for any but medical reasons? The main feature of his appeal was the claim that he had kept to his promise not to engage in political activities. I therefore referred his claim to the special panel of the Tribunal, which had been set up by the previous Administration, and four members out of its five had been appointed by them.
After a hearing lasting five days, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that there was no essential reason for Mr. Dutschke to remain here on medical grounds; that he had not abided by the assurances given by him, and on his behalf, not to engage in political activities; and that if he were to remain for a further period as a student, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, there must without doubt be risk to national security in his continued presence. The Tribunal found that my decision was in accordance with the law and immigration rules and it did not consider that, in the exercise of my discretion in this matter, I should have exercised it differently.
The effect of the Tribunal's findings—that is, of a Tribunal chosen by the previous Administration—is to confirm my decision not to vary the original conditions which Mr. Dutschke accepted when coming to this country. In other words, the Home Office has kept rigorously to the original agreement and sought no changes. Mr. Dutschke was asked no more than on his part to do the same thing and to leave, as he originally agreed to do when his health had improved. Those are the facts of the case. I should now like to turn to the merits.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has misquoted the Tribunal's findings? He has referred to a statement in paragraph 55 of the report that there would undoubtedly be a risk to


national security. No such phrase is used in that paragraph, which states that:
… there must without doubt be risk in his continued presence on a longer-term stay of this kind.
Whatever that risk was, it was not stated by the Tribunal.

Mr. Maudling: I said that if he stayed on that basis there would, without doubt, be a risk to national security. If the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Free-son) will look back at an earlier stage, he will find that they said that there had been no appreciable risk to national security in his presence to date—and this I entirely accept, because if there had been risk either I or my predecessor would already have asked him to leave—but that despite that, if he remained here, there would without doubt be a risk.
I turn to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I am a little surprised at his attitude in this matter. I have never criticised his actions in this case. I entirely agreed with them. What I have done is consistent with what he himself did. I followed the appeal procedure which he devised and put it to a Tribunal, most of the members of which were chosen by his Government.
He admitted Mr. Dutschke on compassionate grounds, subject to the most stringent conditions, even when, as he said, he was a very sick man and his convalescence had hardly started, whereas now it has been completed. There must have been very strong reasons in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman for him to impose his conditions in the first instance and to continue to reiterate them on each subsequent occasion.
The last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with this case was in January, 1970, when he was not prepared to agree to Mr. Dutschke becoming a student. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not say which way the decision was going, but if it were right, moral and proper for him to retain then the discretion to say "No", why is it wrong for me to exercise that discretion? He reserved his decision on the basis of the evidence available to him. There was a good deal more information available to me when I came to consider this case, in July and August, than there was in

January, six months previously, when it was last decided by the right hon. Gentleman.
As the House knows, it is the constant tradition of Governments not to reveal the sources from which the security services obtain their information in any case. I should certainly not, nor would anyone else, dream of departing from that tradition. But in view of some things which have been said, I should make it absolutely clear that every scrap of information presented to me upon which I made my decision was collected under the personal authority and approval of my predecessor.
So what is the right hon. Gentleman complaining about? The Tribunal was established by him. The personnel of that Tribunal were chosen by his Government. In a debate in November, in what I thought was a slightly intemperate speech, he urged me to accept whatever the Tribunal said and to go along with its verdict. Having used the discretion which he retained, on his evidence, is he now saying that, having used that discretion in the way in which I thought fit on the basis of information not available to him but collected on a basis of which he approved, I should overthrow the verdict of a Tribunal which he established because the Tribunal confirms that I was right?
I turn to some of the matters which have given rise to proper concern over this case. Some of them are very genuine and important, and some are based on a misunderstanding. May I first clear up one or two misunderstandings? The word "deportation" is often used, and was even used, surprisingly, by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. There is no question of deportation. Mr. Dutschke came here as a temporary visitor for health treatment. No action of any kind has been taken by the Home Office to change the basis on which he came to this country. Sometimes it is said that this involves political asylum. There is no possible question of political asylum involved in this case. That has never been advanced on behalf of Mr. Dutschke, but it has been said on many occasions—and it could not possibly be advanced seriously—that the question of political asylum arose here. When coming here, Mr. Dutschke undertook that he would go away after medical treatment.
It is said that this decision is a threat to academic freedom. I do not accept that. I do not challenge for one moment the right of the universities to decide whom they would like to admit to their societies. But, equally, there can be no challenge to the right and duty of Her Majesty's Government, subject to Parliament, to decide who can reside in this country, if he is not a British citizen. I am sure that the universities would never wish to arrogate this right to themselves or, in any case, to claim special exemption from the normal law for those whom they have chosen as students.
Two very important issues about which the public is concerned are, first, the proceedings of the Tribunal and, second, the question of freedom of speech. May I dwell on these to some extent, because I should like to give them the seriousness which they deserve.
As for the proceedings of the Tribunal, no one is happy about this. I am sure that no one who has listened to and studied this Tribunal will think that it is the right answer to this problem. People are concerned especially about the fact that evidence put forward on behalf of the Government was not made available to Mr. Dutschke. This is a great difficulty which has been recognised by succeeding Governments. I have plenty of quotations from my predecessors concerning available and relevant information which comes from sources which cannot be disclosed without damage to the national interest.
That is precisely why the special Tribunal was set up. No security service can possibly work if its sources are destroyed by publication. I recognise that there is an argument for having no security services, though I doubt whether many people in present conditions would regard that as a reasonable proposition. But there can be no argument for having a security service working for the State and then attacking or traducing it. There can certainly be no argument for having a security service and then making it ineffective by forcing the disclosure of its sources of information upon which its effectiveness depends. This problem is well understood by both sides of the House.

Mr. Clinton Davis: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that argument with the fact that,

in treason trials or trials involving breaches of the Official Secrets Act, when evidence has to be given in camera it is given in such a way that a defendant can answer it and cross-examine the witnesses who are giving evidence?

Mr. Maudling: That is my next point. In this case, there is no question of a trial. The Home Office were not seeking a change in Mr. Dutschke's position. The case arose from his desire to challenge my refusal to vary the conditions which he originally accepted for entry. All that could happen to him, if the Tribunal found against him, was that he would be held to what he agreed to do less than two years ago.
If sources cannot be disclosed without damage to the national interest, it is important that provision should be made for the reference of these matters to independent and judicially-minded people in whom the appellants can have confidence and whose advice will carry weight.
It is against that background that this Tribunal was chosen by the previous Government, and what happened was to carry out precisely the solution which they had proposed for what I entirely agree is a very difficult problem.
If we can find ways and means of preventing that situation, I for one would be happy to do so. Both sides would wish to reconcile what are genuine considerations of national security and the position of individuals.
I come finally to the basic issue of political freedom which has been raised in this instance. This is the issue of freedom of speech and political protest. Was my decision that Mr. Dutschke should not become a student here, like my predecessor's similar decision in the first instance, an affront to the rights of freedom of speech? By my unwillingness to allow him to reside in this country and take part in political activities am I, in fact, limiting the freedom of speech which our constitution should provide?
These are, without doubt, issues of profound importance for any democracy. But all freedom of speech and of protest must be subject to some limitation within the fabric of organised society. For freedom itself cannot exist without law to protect it, and to use freedom of speech or protest in order to undermine organised lawful society is, in my submission, something that is unacceptable. If we want


to preserve freedom we must be prepared when necessary to protect it, and the freedom to impose by force one's views upon others is not a freedom that any democracy can accept. Freedom has traditionally been under threat from government, but it is also upheld by government, and in modern conditions particularly the threat to freedom may come from those who wish to overthrow or discredit democratic government itself.
There should be no limit on any advocacy of any changes in our society or our constitution by peaceful means. There should be no limitation on the basic freedom to hold political views, to propose, to argue, to persuade, even to protest, and all these freedoms should apply equally to those who live in this country, be they British citizens by right, or foreign citizens, including students, whom we have agreed to admit here. But to promote and, even more, to organise, the use of force for this purpose is an extension of political protest that is not acceptable in our democracy. This has always been recognised by our law and by succeeding governments. Whatever may be true in a country where government is tyrannical, in a country such as ours where the people can choose their own Parliament and their own Government, force can be the weapon only of the minority to deny freedom to the majority.
There can be no doubt that the concept of national security has been changing as the threat to our democratic society changes. The danger is no longer solely external. The most cursory look at the world shows the development of many groups of determined people openly devoted to the use of force in one degree or another for political ends. We have seen its advocacy and its use in North America, Latin America, the Middle East, and even in this country itself. And there can be no doubt that there are contacts between these various groups, whose circumstances may be different but who are united in the belief that they are entitled to promote their own political purposes, in which they passionately believe, by imposing their will on others. Any country is entitled to anticipate and forestall activities by such political groups. To do so is not to deny freedom but to protect it.
It seems to me, moreover, quite clear that countries are entitled to be specially careful when it comes to the admission of foreign citizens. This country has no obligation to admit anyone, leaving aside rights of political asylum which I agree must be inviolate. We have no obligation to admit anyone whose presence might lend itself to the activities of people hostile to our democratic system. There is no such obligation on any Government. Nor has any Government a right to take risks where national security is involved by admitting people as residents of this country who have no claim themselves upon our society and whose presence may be harmful or could be exploited by others for harmful ends. We believe in pursuing a liberal policy for admitting foreign citizens to this country, which has always been a soundly based tradition, but it is our duty to say "No" in circumstances where security considerations make this necessary.
This is my statement of how I believe freedom can be protected and preserved in this country. Only if we are prepared to defend the rights of free democratic decision against any who may use force to impose their political beliefs, only if we follow what all Governments have always done on this point, and only if we understand that national security involves this, can we hope to guarantee freedom of expression against the inevitable backlash which will come from right-wing views and which many would like to stimulate for their own purposes.
These are the considerations which I put forward. I was asked to say what I thought were the proper limitations on freedom of discussion in this country. I believe that this is the proper limitation on freedom of action, and it should not be used to undermine and take away the freedom of others.
To return to the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that we are to have a vote. I welcome that. If the Labour Party disagrees with my action and consider that Mr. Dutschke should be released from the undertakings that he gave freely to gain admission here, in the light of the Tribunal's findings first that he did not keep his under- takings and secondly that if he were allowed to remain there would without doubt be a risk, I hope that right hon.


and hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote to that effect.

5.17 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: My remarks will be brief, because I know that many other hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
The debate is partly about a person, Rudi Dutschke, and the Home Secretary has given us his own account. It is partly about the principles of the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman spent a lot of time on his interpretation of the principles which he believes should govern his judgment in matters of this kind. I want to spend a few moments on both points.
In the light of what the Secretary of State said towards the end of his speech about the need to avoid violence and to oppose the use of force in our society, it is necessary and important for those of us who have not met Rudi Dutschke, as I have not, and as I imagine very few hon. Members have, to pay some regard to what has been written about him in papers such as The Times by those who know him. I will make one brief quotation from an article by Mr. Richard Davy in The Times of Saturday, 9th January, that seems to challenge the Home Secretary's assumptions about Mr. Dutschke's attitude towards violence, and which seems relevant in this matter. Mr. Davy wrote:
Unlike many bored and frustrated middle-class students who gravitate to 'revolution' for the excitement of the game, he does not glamourise violence or advocate its use as a means of gaining power.
In an interview with Dutschke which was published last weekend in The Times, he made his own views on this clear.
One either accepts what someone states to be his philosophy or one does not. If one does not accept it, we are on completely different ground. The Home Secretary has indicated that part of his ground is his view that Dutschke professes to believe in violence. Dutschke denies that that is so. We can only take what he and others say are their philosophies.
Having said that about Dutschke and leaving on one side the factors of his illness, that when he came to this country he had to learn English over again and, incidentally, to learn his own language

over again, and leaving out of account the hardship which followed from an incident in which he was a victim and not a protagonist, I come to the principle which seems to govern the Home Secretary.
Listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I began on the assumption that we should hear something which was at least a reasonable interpretation of his stance in the matter. I ended, when he sat down, dismayed by what seemed to be a complete reinterpretation of the principles of liberty in this country.
The first major change that the Home Secretary has made in the course of his handling of this case is that he has extended—he admits it and supports it—the whole concept of national security from those matters of State secrets, defence secrets and espionage which we have all understood to be encompassed by the necessary methods of State security. The right hon. Gentleman has extended the concept of national security to include political dissent and political militancy, whether or not force is used. He has extended it to cover merely the discussion of what principles should guide militants and dissentients.
I was particularly interested in one remark, and I am quite certain that the Home Secretary could not really have meant what he said here. He was explaining the difference between a trial and the tribunal in terms of the evidence not being available to the defence counsel in the tribunal. If I understood him correctly, he said that it was not a trial in a court of law but a tribunal. The implication is very clear, that if it is not a trial justice does not matter, that totally different approaches can be used if it is not a trial with a possible prison sentence at the end. According to the Home Secretary, the question whether the methods used are just is apparently irrelevant. That was the implication—[Interruption.] I qualify that by saying that it clearly emerged from what he said that the principles of absolute justice, the availability of evidence to the defence counsel, which is regarded as a principle of justice in the courts, is not so regarded in the tribunal. Therefore, we are bound to recognise that the principles of justice can be bent a little, that they are not pure and right in themselves, but are


capable of adaptation to circumstances in the Home Secretary's view.

Mr. Maudling: All this was established by the Government of which the right hon. Lady was a distinguished member.

Mrs. Hart: I never heard, nor do I think I would ever hear, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Secretary of State, using the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman used this afternoon.
Let us be quite clear about this. I believe that in redefining the concept of national security in this way the right hon. Gentleman is taking a dangerous path, which represents a serious departure in British justice, in toleration, and in what we might broadly call methods of political control, which I think would be the words the right hon. Gentleman might care to use. The matter is fundamentally a question of definition.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us to some extent why he has taken the action that he has and adopted this view. He rightly says that the Government have a right to say who shall stay in this country and that they have a right to protect freedom of speech, but he added that the freedom of speech must be subject to some limitation. Indeed, it is already, subject to limitation by the laws of this country. There are many kinds of speech as a result of which police charges can be made, such as incitement to riot and to violence. We have our laws protecting us against any abuse of the freedom of speech, but the right hon. Gentleman said, and I think I quote him correctly, that freedom of speech cannot be allowed to undermine lawful society. I cannot believe even now that he understands the implication of what he says. If this is so, if freedom of speech is never to be allowed to undermine lawful society, the assumption is that whatever may be the concept of lawful society at any point of time is permanently to be so. Had this been the case we should not have had the social changes of the 19th century or this century. There were men and women, the predecessors of hon. Members on this side of the House, who sought to undermine lawful society as it

was seen then. Is what the right hon. Gentleman says a recipe for the permanence of one particular philosophy? That is what it sounds like to me, and it is extremely dangerous.
The Home Secretary said that people from abroad who may be hostile to our country should not be allowed to stay, that people who discuss the use of force and violence should not be allowed to stay. I have dealt with that point as it concerns Rudi Dutschke, but our whole system of law gives plenty of opportunity to deal with anyone who either uses or threatens to use force. The Home Secretary must accept that I am sincere in what I say now. His speech can only smack of the beginnings of a trend towards the kind of McCarthyism that we must not permit to develop in this country.

Mr. Angus Maude: The right hon. Lady talks about a threat to freedom of speech, but surely she recognises that it was not my right hon. Friend who silenced Herr Dutschke but his predecessor, who imposed the condition that he must refrain from political activity? All that my right hon. Friend has done is to confirm the original terms and conditions.

Mrs. Hart: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the issue here, and the reason for this debate, is that we have a different point of view on what political activity is. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that his view of political activity is apparently very different from that of the Home Secretary, and therefore this is a relevant point to bring out in the debate.
It has always been my view that there are two high posts in Government which carry more responsibility, outside that of the Prime Minister, than any other. One is that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the other that of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, simply because both, aside from pursuing their own political policies, have a duty which transcends that to the whole tradition of Britain, which they have a duty to safeguard whatever their political party approach may be.
It seems to me—and I think that the Home Secretary revealed this to be so in much of what he said—that he recognises that there is in this country at present


a wave of opinion that will undoubtedly agree with him. However, in playing to that gallery he is letting down his key post and the trust that we should be able to place in the Secretary of State for the Home Department even when he belongs to another party. He is making a great mistake about the reservoir of opinion, even though it may be a minority of opinion in this country, which totally disagrees with his approach on this case.
I had a recent experience in which the case of Rudi Dutschke emerged into public discussion, and as a result I have had one of the biggest posts I have ever had in my political life in the House. I have never had such a predominantly favourable, supporting post. There is no doubt that if the Home Secretary feels that he can play to a dangerous gallery he can carry others with him and gain the majority in the Lobby. The Times has said that any Home Secretary can do anything as long as he has a majority in the House of Commons. Of course he can. The responsibility is therefore all the greater upon him. I am sorry that we have not heard anything from him this afternoon that could reassure us about the underlying factors in his mind and about his approach to a fundamental question stretching far beyond the particular case of Rudi Dutschke.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House of the strict time limit on this debate. Unless speeches are extremely short many hon. Members will be very disappointed when the debate ends.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Harold Soref: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for enabling me to face the House for the first time in debate. In rising to make my maiden speech I ask the indulgence of the House. It is something of an ordeal for anyone to address the House for the first time, as many would testify, but on such a subject as we are now debating, with a great deal of emotion involved, I shall do my best to see that there is no undue strain on the generosity of the House, for which it is renowned.
My predecessor was Sir Douglas Glover, who represented Ormskirk here

for 18 years with great distinction. He endeared himself to the House and is greatly loved throughout South-West Lancashire. It is something of a challenge to succeed a man of his integrity, assiduity, popularity and near-omniscience, particularly his profundity on parliamentary procedure.
There are others in the House and in the other place who have represented Ormskirk. The predecessor of Sir Douglas Glover, the noble Lord, Lord Salter, was an illustrious Member for Ormskirk, and I understand that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), who has not lost his nostalgia for Ormskirk, an increasingly contiguous constituency to Huyton.
I understand that it is customary for a maiden speech not to be unduly controversial. There have been modifications of this tradition during my short presence in this Parliament, but I am a traditionalist and I believe that it is a reasonable assumption that the maintenance of law and order and the security of the State are matters of equal interest to all three parliamentary parties. Therefore anything that I say on those matters surely falls within the parliamentary traditions of all three parties, which are equally wedded to a belief in parliamentary democracy, free speech, freedom of assembly, the right of political asylum and academic freedom. But it seems to me, as I am sure it did to many who entered the House after the last General Election, that of no less public concern than violent crime has been violence in politics and apprehension that certain people have a reluctance to condemn it unequivocally.
There is increasing fear, reflected in many manifestations in this country, of a threat of the break-down of democracy and of anarchy and a collapse of authority. In this context, the subject must be considered from the point of view of the feelings of the people. There are revolutionary groups, including student revolutionaries, who are promoting revolution in an endeavour to undermine our society. I do not think that it is going too far to say that its culmination was the attempt on the life of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and his family last week, which symbolised the climate created by such people.
We in the House are increasingly aware of the danger of such guerrillas. Despite what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady this evening, Mr. Dutschke, according to the interiew in The Times last Saturday and his television performance last evening with Mr. Paul Foot and Mr. Tariq Ali—predictable, on Granada Television—shows that he has not changed his views at all.
Mr. Dutschke is the guru of the guerrillas. He has shown, as evidenced in the document provided by the Tribunal, a history of turbulence and near-guerrilla activity. Both his appearance on television and his interviews in The Times show him to be a disciple of Professor Marcuse, who is the patron saint of the urban guerrillas and who is out to destroy the society we hold dear, even by the symbol of the oath we have all taken. It cannot be contradicted that Mr. Dutschke led student revolutionaries in Germany. He fomented demonstrations and advocated violence, and he is dedicated to the overthrow of our type of society.
On the legal aspect, I do not think that anyone could add a word to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said this evening. He gave conclusive evidence for the wisdom of his action. Mr. Dutschke originally came here two years ago to convalesce for one month, and he has stayed under one pretext after another. Surely there is ample evidence from his behaviour and his activities that he does not have a suitable case for remaining in this country. When one reads the Report in 1962 of the inquiry headed by Lord Radcliffe into the alleged weaknesses in security provided in the public services, is that not an additional reason for the termination of the stay of Mr. Dutschke in this country?
My right hon. Friend, in accepting the decision of the Tribunal, acted justly and surely in accord not only with the will of the nation but in accordance with legislation on this matter introduced by the last Government. Is it not unthinkable that any other Home Secretary would have acted otherwise? In taking the course he has done, there is little doubt that my right hon. Friend will enjoy the thanks and congratulations of a grateful nation.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: It is the custom of the House that the hon. Member who follows a maiden speaker congratulates him on his maiden speech. I do so formally to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref)—I am not in that sense being personally offensive. I imagine that the best compliment I can pay to him is that his opinions are as far from mine as they could be, and in that case I am not sure whether the Home Secretary will welcome support from that quarter. We shall see. We shall be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman in future debates in which he takes part.
I wish to speak for a few minutes in the debate because I have been in the case from the beginning, but the whole case was expressed with such overwhelming effectiveness and force by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that I only wish to make a few minor additions to what he had to say. I may add that, in my opinion, during the whole period when he dealt with this case, my right hon. Friend dealt with it in accordance with the highest traditions of this country and that it is the departure from those traditions by the Home Secretary which is the cause of the debate.
The Home Secretary purported to give the facts of what had happened in this case, but he omitted to give many facts and he omitted to give any answer to the most serious question about the case itself which was posed by my right hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, when the letter of 25th August was sent, in which the Home Secretary stated the reasons on which he intended to deny Mr. Dutschke the possibility of staying in this country further, surely, if the right hon. Gentleman had objections then to the conduct of Mr. Dutschke in any sense at all, if he had any concern about national security arising in this case, he would have expressed them in that letter. Surely these matters should have been dealt with.
But, as the Home Secretary knows perfectly well, the case is even stronger than that. After receiving that letter, I immediately asked the right hon. Gentleman whether I could come and see him, and he readily agreed. The conversation I had with him then underlines


afresh the point my right hon. Friend has posed because, as the right hon. Gentleman will confirm, I thought he treated me at that interview with the utmost candour and stated the position quite clearly.
First, I told the right hon. Gentleman that I wished to remove any question of there being any doubt about a complaint on the ground that the basis of the application for Mr. Dutschke to stay in this country had been changed. I wished to persuade him that that change had been made openly and in good faith, both by Mr. Dutschke and myself. He concurred that there had been no breach of faith at all. Then we had a discussion on the conditions. The right hon. Gentleman made no complaint to me then, just as he had made no complaint in the letter, about any breach of the conditions. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman had raised any single case of a breach of the conditions, I would immediately have said, "I must take that up with Mr. Dutschke and see what is his retort." No such complaint was made by the Home Secretary, not in any sense whatever.
The right hon. Gentleman now says to the House of Commons that he had a good deal more evidence than my right hon. Friend had. If he had a good deal more evidence when he saw me on 7th September, or when he made his decision on 25th August, he should have told us then and we could have looked at the matter again. Moreover, in the discussion with the right hon. Gentleman, there was no reference whatever to the term "national security". I do not think that national security had ever occurred to him in this case.
As I have said elsewhere, I have seen earlier Home Secretaries on matters of this kind to try and persuade them to permit someone to stay in this country, and when matters of national security have been involved they have always said so. I remember Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, saying to me, "It is a matter of national security", or "National security is involved and therefore I am afraid I cannot discuss that." But the right hon. Gentleman made no mention whatever of national security. What he did say, perfectly in accord with what he has said today, is that he treated the matter as if it were an original application for a student coming from abroad.

That was the basis on which he was exercising his discretion and he said that he was doing so in a different manner from that of my right hon. Friend.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman exercised that discretion wrongly. Most of us on this side of the House believe that he did so. He says that he exercised it rightly, but that is not the end of the matter, indeed, as he will also recall from our conversation on that occasion, the last discussion we had on the matter was whether the decision was final, because I did not wish to mislead Mr. Dutschke in any sense. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I will consider what you have said if you wish, but I think that you must take it as final. I do not think that it will make any difference to my decision." He never mentioned to me any question of the Appeals Tribunal or that he had rights under it. Nor did I mention it because I did not know that he had them. [HON. MEMBERS: "You passed the Bill."] We passed the Bill, but he was supposed to be administering the Act.
I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman knew on 7th September that there was going to be an appeal, because I must say that, if he did know at that moment that there was going to be an appeal, I would have thought, particularly since we had perhaps four or five minutes in the conversation on the question of whether the matter was final, that he would have told me: "Of course, you are aware that there is a possibility of an appeal to the Tribunal." My belief is that, when he saw me on that occasion, first, he did not believe that there was anything wrong in the way in which the basis of the application had been altered; secondly, he did not believe that Mr. Dutschke had broken any of his undertakings; thirdly, he did not believe that national security was involved in any sense; and, fourthly, he did not believe there could be any appeal. I think he believed that he was just exercising his discretion.
If the matter had been left there, it would have been solely a wrong exercise of his discretion by the right hon. Gentleman and the case would not have been so sinister as it has become, because the case against Mr. Dutschke has derived from the period after the interview of 7th September. If we put it the other


way round, then the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of the gravest possible deception and bad faith.
Of course if the right hon. Gentleman had a complaint he should have said so. Of course if he knew there was to be an appeal to the Tribunal he should have said so. What was the purpose of our having a conversation if we were not to try to settle the matter? I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this was a proper course for him in discussing the matter in those terms. I thought that he was dealing with me in good faith. If his defence now is that he knew that there were breaches of the conditions, that there was a good deal more evidence than he made available to me. I suggest that he has, in fact, cooked it up for this debate at this late date in the proceedings. If he really had such evidence, he should have said so then and not after the proceedings have gone to this length.
The result is that, if other countries and people throughout the world believe the Home Secretary and the Tribunal and their evidence, if they believe that Mr. Dutschke is the kind of man who breaks his undertakings for malevolent political purposes and that he is a danger to Britain's national security, Mr. Dutschke and his family—one of his two children, let us remember, was born in this country—are going to be harried from one country to another, are they not? For are there countries much more secure than we are which can withstand these perils?
The Home Secretary and the Tribunal have brought about a lamentable state of affairs. They have committed an outrageous defamation of character against Mr. Dutschke, a form of judicial defamation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. What about the individuals concerned? Individuals have rights. One of the great things about the House of Commons is that we should seek to protect the individual.
Echoing the remarks of my right hon. Friend, I believe that the Home Secretary has made the situation still worse by his speech today, not only by his failure to answer the question which was put to him by my right hon. Friend and which I have sought to reinforce by a description of our interview, but by the philosophical peroration which redefines supposedly

the kind of people who may be allowed into this country and the kind of surveillance which may be made upon them. If that surveillance is to be carried out to the extent described by the hon. Gentleman, then the Special Branch will have to become a much more expensive affair. Public expenditure will have to go up on that account at any rate. The telephoning tapping which must be tolerated will have to be on a very much more extensive scale.
If this kind of definition of British freedom had been applied in the nineteenth century, not only Karl Marx would have been excluded—some may say that that would have been fine—but Mazzini, Garibaldi, Kossuth and Alexander Herzen would have been excluded, and the list includes some of the most famous names of that century, people now honoured in their own countries from which they had been driven at that time.
It is my belief that, thanks to the folly and worse with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this case, the name of Rudi Dutschke will be added to those famous names. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Yes. Hon. Members opposite had better read, if they can, the reports and articles which have appeared in newspapers like The Times by people who know the man.
I say that a man should be dealt with fairly in this country, wherever he comes from. Mr. Dutschke has been dealt with most unfairly and if this new definition is accepted then, indeed, the restriction of British freedom which the Home Secretary is seeking to impose can be increasingly dangerous. I believe that this debate must be continued on later occasions so that we on this side can try to restore the freedoms which under right hon. and hon. Members opposite will be steadily eroded.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Dudes: As he sometimes does, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has overstated his case. He has sought to give us his reasons for believing, as he has said outside the House, that the case against Rudi Dutschke was concocted—that was his word—by officials in the Home Office. When I heard him deliver that charge on Sunday, I thought it disgraceful, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who often


stands here for the defence of the individual and individual rights, should make a charge of that kind against public officials not able to defend themselves.
The hon. Gentleman has given us his reasons for believing that the case was concocted. They rest on the half-hour interview which he had on 7th September with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman makes one major error in the assumptions which he draws from that interview. He assumes that my right hon. Friend should have made plain to him the case which he had against Rudi Dutschke. The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware—I am sure that his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is—that even when Members of Parliament go to see Ministers at the Home Office and talk about personal cases of this kind they are not given the reasons held against the individual. That is an important part of Home Office tradition, and there is a good case for it. To give such reasons would be to be guilty of the very defamation of which the hon. Gentleman has just accused my right hon. Friend.
Such disclosures are not made. Because they were not made in this case, the hon. Gentleman went away and decided later on that the information not disclosed to him on 7th September was concocted subsequently. He arrogates too much to himself on that. His argument falls because my right hon. Friend would not have made him privy to the reasons why Rudi Dutschke was to be excluded. And how wise my right hon. Friend was in so doing.
I turn now to the place of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East in all this. It seems ironic that in this debate my right hon. Friend should be in the dock being arraigned by the right hon. Gentleman, for the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he had a big part in the background to it all. He is conducting an inquest into a mess partly of his own making.
In my view, the right hon. Gentleman made two important mistakes, two misjudgments. His first was on the terms on which Rudi Dutschke was originally allowed to stay. He told us this afternoon that he agreed to allow him to stay only on those conditions, that is,

provided that he engaged in no political activity.
I can only say that the Tribunal put a slightly different gloss on those words. In his letter, the right hon. Gentleman said that Rudi Dutschke's admission would be on the clear understanding that he would not engage in political activities. Clearly, that was an understanding which the right hon. Gentleman extracted and expected—

Mr. Callaghan: I did not extract it. It was volunteered by Rudi Dutschke and accepted by me. That is a very different matter.

Mr. Deedes: But it went into the letter, if the right hon. Gentleman now says that it had no meaning, what was the point of keeping it there?
What was the consequence of those conditions? What would the likely effect be? It would mean, in effect, requiring very close observation of Rudi Dutschke to see whether he fulfilled those conditions. In my view, it would have led to a requirement going far beyond the work which we normally carry out in relation to aliens allowed here on whom we keep watch. To ensure that Rudi Dutschke was not here engaging in political activity would have involved, if it has been faithfully carried out, telephone tapping, interfering with mail, and all the rest. In my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman was most unwise to accept those conditions in the first place.
There is a second and, perhaps, more important aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's misjudgment. He was responsible for the 1969 Act. In framing that Act, he set aside—I do not say that he rejected—two important recommendations by Sir Roy Wilson in the original Report on which the Bill was based. I remind the House of what Sir Roy Wilson said on this very type of case:
Cases arise from time to time in which the Home Secretary feels justified in excluding a person from this country, or requiring him to leave, on grounds which are essentially of a political nature—for example, that his presence here is or would be harmful to international relations, or offensive to public opinion. We doubt whether the system of appeals which we are proposing would provide apt machinery for dealing with such cases. We would not therefore think it wrong in principle, or destructive of the general value of the proposed appeal system, to remove such cases from the scope of that system and leave them entirely to the Home Secretary's discretion subject to his responsibility to Parliament.


That was one recommendation. There was a second recommendation in which Sir Roy Wilson said that it does not follow from that that a case should be excluded from the Tribunal merely because it affects security, but he said that, if a security case goes to the Tribunal, the Tribunal could hold its proceedings in camera,
but there would be no question of withholding from the appellant particulars of what is alleged against him.
I should like to know why those two recommendations of Sir Roy Wilson were omitted from the procedures on which my right hon. Friend had to work. In a sense, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East gave us the worst of both worlds. He took away from the Home Secretary the traditional discretion in personal cases of this kind in which a Home Secretary, if he takes a decision, becomes answerable to the House. This is no light imposition. No one who has stood at that Box and tried to defend the Home Secretary on a personal case would say otherwise. It is not agreeable to defend a personal decision on exclusion or deportation in the House of Commons, when the Minister concerned cannot give the reasons for what he has done. There is, therefore, that safeguard. But it was lost, and the Home Secretary. I understand, was left with no reserve discretion at all.
The second point is even more important. None of us, I think, could defend the way in which the Tribunal was put to work. I say that with no derogation of the gentlemen involved. But the exclusion of Rudi Dutshke when the evidence was given in camera against him was something which, I think, no one could defend. Sir Roy Wilson recommended otherwise. What went wrong?
I hold the right hon. Gentleman, for those two reasons, guilty of part of the mess which we are discussing today, for, if those two recommendations had been adopted, we should have been dealing with a very different situation.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind me whether he moved any Amendments on those lines during the passage of the Bill? There are reasons—if the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard the Home Secretary himself gives them this after-

noon—for omitting those two recommended procedures. The Home Secretary see the difficulty of the situation, and so should the right hon. Gentleman; he was a Home Office Minister.

Mr. Deedes: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of what my right hon. and learned Friend, as he then was—now the Lord Chancellor—said to him on the Second Reading of the Bill. He warned him that he was confusing an administrative process with a judicial process. That is precisely what has been done. We have produced a hybrid, and a very bad hybrid.
The system devised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East has become a system which the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to exploit at the expense of my right hon. Friend. That is where the humbug comes in. The right hon. Gentleman should be eating humble pie about it, not complaining and accusing my right hon. Friend of all manner of sins in the Home Office. My advice to my right hon. Friend is that he should as soon as possible scrap that system and put something in its place on which he and his successors can rely.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crossman: We have reached an extremely interesting stage in the debate. At least, we have now had an admission from the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that we are dealing with a mess. That is an advance. Also, we now have the alibi that this is really all the fault of the previous Home Secretary because of the structure of the 1969 Act and the Tribunal system.
That is an interesting point, and I think that there is something in what the right hon. Gentleman said, but, in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I must say that the arguments normally used about security and the Home Secretary's difficulties in such circumstances apply strongly to both the changes which have been proposed from the back benches opposite, and I doubt that we shall this evening have a clear statement that both those criticisms of the Act are accepted.
Next, the right hon. Gentleman took my right hon. Friend the former Home


Secretary to task because, so he said, he had created all the difficulties. I agree to this extent: I do not think that my right hon. Friend would claim, or that we on this side generally would claim, that what we did about Rudi Dutschke was tremendously liberal. We were not giving sanctuary to a famous revolutionary like Marx or Lenin. What we did was much more limited. Here was a fellow who had had two bullets in his brain. He was in Italy, he was unlikely to survive, he was desperately ill, and there were people in this country who could look after him. People wrote and asked whether he would be allowed to come for medical reasons. That was the only reason why he was brought to this country. The only issue was whether that request should be accepted. No one suggested that he should at that time come to do post-graduate work. The question was whether he could be taken to a place where there was a surgeon who could handle his problem. There was such a surgeon here who dealt with him, and his life was saved.
What my right hon. Friend did—and he has had to say it twice—was to accept—not to impose—what was volunteered by Dutschke, namely, an assurance that if he came he would naturally not indulge in political activities. He was desperately ill and wanted his brain repaired. It was natural for him to say, "Of course I will behave myself if I come." That was accepted and, of course, written into the letter. There need have been only one issue for the present Home Secretary, whether after two years, in the new situation, he would make a new arrangement with the same conditions about political activities and allow him to convalesce, because he is not completely cured. He still has epilepsy, he is still near-blind, and part of the cure is a rest in the asylum of a university.
It was obviously desirable that he should stay at one of our universities. He first tried to go to Oxford, and it was only because they did not have the right kind of tutor—I have a letter from the Fellow who interviewed him at Oxford—that he went to Cambridge. They had the right man for this thesis. It was looked at from this point of view, and this was seen to be the second stage in his cure. It could have been possible for the Home Secretary to let the situation go on quietly. One of the things this man needs

is not to be the centre of a political maelstrom but to be left to write his thesis, with the possibility that if he did he would not go back to being a revolutionary. These things happen to some people. In their lives they have a revolutionary period. I will go no further than that.
But that was not the issue. The Home Secretary decided not to do that, and I am rather convinced by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It is possible that he was right about that. It was very odd of the Home Secretary not to mention the Tribunal, the appeal, but to discuss the decision as final. Anyhow it was not discussed—and suddenly there came the appeal. I am sure that the form of inquiry is not perfect but certainly it was used in a peculiar way, so that what should have been an inquiry, in a sense on behalf of the man, turned into a court in which he was a defendant. This is the point which many of us view with the greatest alarm—the procedure of the inquiry and the rôle of the Attorney-General, emphasising that slow, forensic procedure, as against an inquiry before the Home Secretary made up his mind or while he did so.
What is even more serious is what the Home Secretary concluded. If he had merely had a different view on Dutschke, on what is necessarily a balance, I should have said simply that it was wrong and a great pity; but that is not the situation. The Home Secretary has developed or is developing a new doctrine to justify his view, and it is this which is causing serious alarm in academic circles. I mentioned Oxford. I notice the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) in the Chamber. He does not take quite the same view as does the Warden of his College. While the hon. Member jeers at Dutschke in a letter to The Times and quotes Lenin in 1932 to prove that Dutschke was wrong—

Mr. Woodhouse: I did not jeer at Dutschke in The Times nor did I even suggest that the arguments which I presented in the letter to The Times had anything to do with whether he should be allowed to stay in this country. I think he should not be allowed to stay, but the reasons are quite simple.

Mr. Crossman: I do not quite know why the article was presented in The Times dealing with Dutschke and why he should

Mr. Woodhouse: The only reason why it appeared in The Times was that the interview with Dutschke appeared in The Times on the Saturday.

Mr. Crossman: It is nice to know that this is not the reason why the hon. Member thinks that Dutschke ought not to stay and that he has a different reason to give. We had a remarkable occasion in Oxford last night when the Warden of his College and of mine addressed a meeting and emphasised this single point as an academic—the seriousness of the new doctrine that a person does not have to do anything to be subversive, that it is sufficient if he is known to be conversing and discussing.
It is not denied that he has done nothing. He has not done anything that anyone would call "organization"; it is not denied that he has conversed a great deal. The hon. Member has not been a don as long as I was, but if a person is a student and is to write a thesis on revolutionary communism, it is a little difficult for him to do it without discussing revolutionary communism. He has to meet people and discuss.
If we are now to say that intimate, passionate discussion, going about meeting people and discussing is in itself evidence sufficient to justify someone not being allowed to study at British universities, then the Home Secretary is right in saying that in his view we are now in such a grave new period of security that new counter-measures must be thought about. The new counter-measures are a means of forestalling, getting in before the organisation, before the action, when people are doing nothing but discussing. That is a very important development indeed and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that we should have another debate about it.
Let us hope that when the Home Secretary made that ill-considered and brief statement he had not thought it out, like his original statement to my hon. Friend, and that he can change a little and advance new theories. If this is his new idea, and if we are to look at every one of the 23,000 foreign students and then, if we can show that they have revolutionary

thoughts, be able to disqualify, without stating reasons, anyone whom the right hon. Gentleman's security people say has had dangerous revolutionary thoughts and conversations, the right hon. Gentleman will destroy not only academic life in the country but the quality of liberty in this country and free discussion inside and outside universities.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: The issue today is, how can we ensure that Britain, and my constituency of Cambridge in particular, remains a citadel of freedom and a haven for refugees without also becoming a Mecca for revolutionaries? This is an exceptionally difficult issue, just as the case of Rudi Dutschke is an exceptionally difficult case. It calls for cool thought and judgment rather than the paroxysms of indignation into which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and others have been working themselves during the last two weeks.
I hope that the House will support my right hon. Friend tonight. To make my own position clear, I believe that on balance my right hon. Friend was wise to decide as he did, although I have several reservations and criticisms on certain aspects of the case. Over an issue of this kind I envy those who are quite sure that they know what is right and what is wrong, on either side of the argument. I have considerable hesitation before coming down on the side of my right hon. Friend. None of us can envy the responsibility of a Home Secretary in making these agonising human decisions.
The majority of my constituents will be relieved that Mr. Dutschke is not to remain in Cambridge. However, there are a substantial minority inside and outside the university who are very critical of the decision, a minority ranging in political viewpoints from the extreme Left to the moderate Right. Academic opinion in Cambridge is divided. Yesterday, although several hundred students protested by forgoing study, the majority of the university continued to work normally. May I say in passing, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said when opening the debate, that there are many hundreds of foreign students who are welcome in Cambridge and I hope always will be. They make a great contribution


to university life, from all political points of view.
I judge that the feeling in the country is broadly the same, a majority supporting the Home Secretary but an important minority uneasy. No hon. or right hon. Member of the House should under-estimate the extent of this anxiety or the need for reassurance that our traditional civil liberties are not being eroded by this decision. I hope there will be reassurance from what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon.
In our concern with these wider issues I hope we shall not overlook the personal side, that is, the impact on Mr. and Mrs. Dutschke. I have had only one short meeting with them. They are people of charm and ability, and one cannot fail to sympathise with them in the predicament in which they find themselves, or fail to realise what an ordeal these last few months have been for them. Mr. Dutschke, although his health has been largely restored after the deplorable shooting, is and will remain less than 100 per cent. fit. For him, particularly, the strain must have been great. I am sorry that it has taken so long for his appeal to be heard and decided, and sorry, too, that the direction of my right hon. Friend—understandably, and I support him in this—that the appeal should be heard by the Tribunal was not communicated to Mr. Dutschke before, or at least simultaneously with, its publication to Parliament and the Press. I hope in any similar situation in future the Home Office will not lay itself open to criticism on points such as these.
On the broader issues, we are dealing with this "grey area"in which Home Secretaries have to balance our liberal tradition with the needs of national security in the contemporary world. My right hon. Friend has already cleared up one misconception, the charge that Mr. Dutschke is being denied the right of political asylum. He also dealt with another, that the decision in this case is an insult to the judgment of Cambridge University and a blow against academic freedom. I do not see it in that light. Surely it is for the university to judge the acceptability of students on academic grounds and for the Home Secretary to look at other and wider considerations.
The crux is the exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion in this case. I must remind the House, as was made

clear in the Tribunal's Report, of what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) wrote to his hon. Friend in 1968 when Mr. Dutschke was originally given permission to come here for medical treatment. He made it quite clear that Mr. Dutschke would not be allowed to stay for academic study. The right hon. Gentleman has been much less than frank with the House this afternoon in saying to my right hon. Friend that he should not have made the decision this way. He owes it to us to explain why he told his hon. Friend in 1968 that he would have taken precisely the same decision.
The test for the Home Secretary is: is there a significant risk in Mr. Dutschke remaining here for a prolonged stay, not just for medical treatment but as a student? My right hon. Friend decided that there was a risk and the Tribunal came to the same conclusion in this key sentence:
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case there must without doubt be risk in his continued presence on a longer-term stay of this kind.
Reluctantly, because I would have liked to give Mr. Dutschke the benefit of the doubt, I too foresee a risk, small though it may be. Critics ask, what on earth is this risk; on what grounds is his presence undesirable? There seem to me to be two grounds, maybe slight grounds, but we are dealing here with a fine balance of judgment. The first is what Mr. Dutschke might do directly. He has said to me and to others, and he says it very persuasively, that he has no intention of engaging in political activity. Against that we have the view of the Tribunal after weighing all the evidence, which we have not heard, that whatever his intentions may have been, he did not, in fact, abide by his original assurances.
The second ground is the indirect effect of his prolonged presence here. There is a possibility, again small though it may be, that a number of individuals would be attracted to Britain to see and to meet Mr. Dutschke, whether or not he wished it, some of them active revolutionaries in a sense that he—I agree—may no longer be. So Mr. Dutschke might become, to put it bluntly, a magnet or focus for disruption.
The last point on which criticism has centred is the charge that the Tribunal was a travesty of justice. We must


remind ourselves that its five members were men of great distinction and varied experience who certainly cannot be regarded as repressive reactionaries. Furthermore, it was the Home Secretary and not Mr. Dutschke who was, so to speak, on trial, because it was the propriety of the exercise of his discretion that was being questioned. Surely there is a distinction from a normal court of law. Also, from my reading of the Tribunal's Report, I believe it arrived at its conclusion mainly from the public evidence and was not greatly influenced by the evidence in camera.
But having said that, we cannot be satisfied with the procedure in the special Tribunal as we have seen it operate. In the Home Secretary's review of the machinery I hope that he will not without careful thought decide to abolish the right of appeal. If the right remains, subject of course to what he said this afternoon about the security services, I hope a way may be found for the appellant and his advisers to be given at least a broad indication of the evidence presented in camera.
It is quite wrong to allege on the basis of this one exceptionally difficult case that our civil liberties in Britain are being gravely threatened. For any of us who know my right hon. Friend and his general outlook it is absurd to picture him as a high priest of intolerance and repression. I am as anxious as anyone in this House to maintain our liberal traditions, to protect the rights of discussion, dissent and peaceful protest, and to defend academic freedom. Yet we should be foolish to ignore the threats to this very liberalism from the forces, national and international, which are dedicated to the overthrow of our system, by violence if necessary, and are only too glad to exploit our openness and our tolerance for this purpose. The British liberal tradition surely does not oblige us to offer unlimited scope to revolutionaries from overseas, and I do not think it illiberal to support a Home Secretary who, in an intensely difficult case such as this, gives the benefit of the doubt to the protection of our system and our society.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I am happy to follow the hon. Member

for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), but I cannot possibly allow his arguments to stand, particularly that part of his speech in which he seemed to be accusing Herr Dutschke not of guilt by actual association but of guilt by prospective association. In other words, he was saying that at some time in the future rather unsavoury political characters may knock at his door in Cambridge and we shall all be threatened in our beds. That goes beyond any doctrine of McCarthyism which we may have heard in the debate this afternoon.
I want to make clear the things I do not care about in this case. I care nothing for Herr Dutschke's politics, whether they are called revolutionary socialism or, by some of his more sentimental supporters, Christian Socialism. I do not agree with his views, but I do not find them dangerous. They are not, of course, capitalist, unless one defines capitalism by the principles of an offshore company, but I do not have nightmares at the thought that Herr Dutschke is thinking his dangerous thoughts. Nor do I suggest that he has a better right to be here than any other would-be immigrant, whether temporary or permanent and whether for reasons of study or health. Thousands of people with as much right to come here as he has have been kept away from our shores and have been denied their rights because of the immigration hysteria of both the present Government and the Opposition party. Nor do I suggest that he is a saint or that he is Christ on earth. He has certainly advocated some pretty ferocious direct action.
What I care about is liberal Britain. I care about the preservation and propagation of liberal values, and my major purpose in this House is to preserve and propagate those values.
The Report produced by the Tribunal is a shameful document—and not only those parts which deal with the tenure of office of the present Home Secretary. If one looks at pages 3 and 4 which deal with the conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading from the Opposition Front Bench one can see that these are a damning indictment of a Government which pretended to liberal values. On 6th December, 1968, when he was approached in his capacity


as Home Secretary to allow Herr Dutschke to remain, he said:
I could not agree to admit Mr. Dutschke for a long-term stay to carry out literary commitments or to engage in a course of postgraduate study at a British university.
As a result of those comments Mrs. Dutschke's solicitors wrote to the Home Office promising that Herr Dutschke would not engage in
political, literary or academic activities.
I now turn to procedure. The issue of security was raised by the Home Secretary at a very late date. It was raised for no other reason than that he wanted to ensure that the appeal procedure would not back Herr Dutschke's appeal. He has even said that if it had backed Herr Dutschke's appeal he might have had to resign—what a terrible shame!
The secret evidence, the private hearing, is utterly monstrous in this country. It is totally against everything that one has ever been taught about British fair play and British justice. The Home Secretary has said that the Tribunal was not a court, but it had the effect of a court. I should like to hear from the Home Secretary whether all the members of the Tribunal were able to hear the secret evidence. Were they all there when it was given, and had they all been given security clearance?
How was the evidence, presented in camera, collected? It is impossible to believe that the evidence that has been leaked in the Press could have been collected other than by telephone tapping. If there were telephone tapping, who gave the authority for Herr Dutschke's telephone to be tapped?
Who gave the authority for the intensive shadowing that must have occurred to concoct—or, if hon. Gentlemen do not like the word "concoct", to gather together—the evidence?
I have said that this document is disgraceful. It runs totally counter to all the things which I wish to preserve when I talk of a liberal Britain. The whole procedure was a charade. We employed a quasi-judicial procedure to arrive at an undoubtedly political decision. The Wilson Committee separated political and security cases. If we are to have political cases of this sort, they must be held in public and they must be non-judicial.

In security cases, there must be a proper judicial procedure.
The Tribunal expressed an extraordinary view in saying that, although Herr Dutschke was not an appreciable security risk nevertheless he might be in the future. This can be compared with the injunction procedure of a court where a court is asked to stop something happening that has not happened yet. If anybody wants an injunction of that sort in an English court, he must produce evidence very much more concrete than the evidence that was produced in this particular case.
This case has proved conclusively to me the truth of Bertrand Russell's remark that
Men fear thought more than they fear anything else on earth.
Secondly, it has proved that the Home Secretary is not a liberal. He is not even a National Liberal. No doubt that may please him. I am suggesting that part of the motivation behind his actions in this case was precisely to prove that point. It is very dangerous and uncomfortable to be labelled a liberal Home Secretary in the present atmosphere of the Conservative Party.
In his concluding philosophical treatise he set up a total Aunt Sally—namely, the suggestion that Rudi Dutschke has advocated violence, and is still doing so. There is absolutely no evidence that he is still advocating violence, or indeed that since he came to this country he has espoused a philosophy of violence. It was easy for the Home Secretary to knock down such an Aunt Sally. But his was a monstrous performance this afternoon and it did no kind of honour to his office.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: I will be very brief since the winding-up speeches are soon to begin. There are two aspects of this case to which I want to address myself. The first is the question of what principles are involved. The second is the question whether Mr. Dutschke is or would be a threat to this country.
We have heard and read an enormous amount of emotional stuff about the principles involved. I beg the House before coming to a decision to ask itself carefully how much of this is justified.
We are told that the rights and freedoms of the individual are at stake, and that the liberty of the subject, the principle of free speech and academic freedom are threatened. I submit that not one of these is involved in this individual case. I will try to justify what I say.
The liberty of the subject cannot be involved, first, because Mr. Dutschke is not a subject and, secondly, because his liberty is not threatened. There is nothing here which involves or threatens the liberty of the subject.
Then it is said that people's rights are being threatened. Mr. Dutschke has no rights here. And there is no country in the world which recognises the right of any individual to come and settle in that country of his own free will. Every country recognises, and keeps the right to decide, who shall be allowed to stay. There is no right involved here which has been threatened.
On the question of freedom of speech, it was not my right hon. Friend who silenced Mr. Dutschke. This was done by, if anybody, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who put into his letter as part of the terms that he should refrain from political activities.
There is no threat to academic freedom because it cannot be held, and never has been held, that by accepting somebody in a course of study the authorities of any university could ever arrogate to themselves the right to act as the immigration authority of this country, which function resides in the Home Secretary.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) seemed to suggest that the present Home Secretary was being illiberal, whereas, apparently, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East would, if asked, have allowed Mr. Dutschke to come here as a student for a course of study.

Mr. Crossman: What I said was that there was a new doctrine which the Home Secretary emphasised this afternoon. The Home Secretary said that he had enunciated new measures, new thoughts, because of new kinds of danger. These new things were completely new to his predecessor. Therefore, those were the things we were discussing.

Mr. Maude: The point is that the Home Secretary's predecessor would not have taken Mr. Dutschke as a student. He has already said that he would not. Moreover, he made it very clear at the end of the first period of Mr. Dutschke's stay here as an invalid. The Home Office wrote in January, 1969, to the Dutschkes and said that the time was up and that they ought to go. The former Home Secretary made it clear that he would not have been prepared to allow Mr. Dutschke to come here as a student.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? It is not the case that he took that view throughout. He did take that view originally, but at the beginning of January, 1970, when we asked the Home Office about the situation if a different application were made, he said that he would be prepared to consider the matter. That puts a different complexion on it.

Mr. Maude: Any Home Secretary would say that he would be prepared to consider the matter; it would be unreasonable for him not to do so. The point is that he had not done so in the first place, and his attitude was fairly clear.
We come to the question whether Mr. Dutschke is, was, or could be a danger to the country. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East must have thought that, with Dutschke's record, he would be a danger—otherwise why was he so careful to keep down the periods of his stay? Why did he put into his letter the terms that he must refrain from political activities and so forth? The right hon. Gentleman must have thought that Mr. Dutschke's record meant that he could be a danger.
It is said that this is now all changed, that Mr. Dutschke has behaved himself here and has not been a danger. The Tribunal said so. But Mr. Dutschke was living life here for a period of one month to six months, and then for another six months, hoping to get a permanent permit to stay here. He has, of course, been extremely careful to refrain from political activities during this time. But my right hon. Friend has had to consider whether, when conditions improved, he could be relied on to


refrain from political activities. On the basis of his past record he could not be so relied on.
Mr. Dutschke's interview with Mr. Davey of The Times has been mentioned in his support. I have read it carefully and it gives me no reassurance. On three occasions in that interview when Dutschke was asked whether he would renounce the use of violence, he refused in each case to do so. When he was asked for his views on the urban guerrilla movement, which we must remember threatens us as well as other countries, he went into a long, rambling, evasive sentence which suggested that he would be prepared to support it if the need arose.
It seems to me that we are in a situation in which my right hon. Friend will be blamed very much if he now takes a risk in security matters. He must balance the two things: the risk of affronting liberals in this country, who believe that freedom is being endangered, and the policy of reassuring the overwhelming majority of people in this country, who believe that there is an increasing security risk—which has got as near as Northern Ireland and an explosion the other night on the doorstep of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I believe that the Home Secretary is right not to take risks. He will not be forgiven if he takes them.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I was interested to hear the concluding words of the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). I hope that he is not suggesting that Rudi Dutschke placed the bomb, which everyone of us deplores, on the Secretary of State's step. If he is making that suggestion, it is a smear and nothing else.
There have been several extreme reactions to the Home Secretary's decision, none of which I share. I do not regard this as the first step on the way to a police State, as perhaps many of Rudi Dutschke's supporters would imply. But the Home Secretary's decision diminishes by a small amount the great reputation of this country for the way in which it treats not only its own citizens, but those who enter this country from abroad. I think that his position can be criticised on that ground.
I do not, of course, share the other extreme viewpoint: "Rudi Dutschke was a foreigner and German; he was young, a student, and probably long-haired, though to his credit he was white". These are all automatic reasons for some people to want to get rid of him.
I do not subscribe to the view of many people in this country that it does not matter at all what happens, because this involves only one man and what happens to one man is of little importance. Of course, it is of importance. It is the very essence of democracy and is what democracy is all about.
It is not the first time that this House has discussed the fate of one man and how his future has been decided, not only by a tribunal, but by a court of law. Reference has been made to the methods used by the Tribunal. I was a little distressed at the cursory way in which the Home Secretary, for whom I have a great respect, dealt with the intervention of my hon. Friend. Everybody in the House has said that nobody could condone the fact that Rudi Dutschke was not allowed to hear the security part of the evidence against him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) interrupted to ask whether it is not the fact that in Official Secrets cases involving espionage and the security of the State not only is the accused allowed to hear the evidence but also the accused's barrister and his solicitors as well. If the accused is allowed to hear evidence in those cases—which are far more vital in the security of a nation than anything Rudi Dutschke ever did or is likely to do—why was his counsel not allowed to hear the evidence in the case?
We have not had a satisfactory answer from the Home Secretary. The trial might not have been a strict trial in that it was not conducted according to the strict rules of evidence, but so far as Rudi Dutschke was concerned it must have seemed very much a trial. The Attorney-General, for whom, again, I have great respect, was there in full panoply, so were defence counsel in wigs. gowns and the lot. If that is not a trial, I wonder what a trial is supposed to be? The fact is that this was the method by which the Dutschke case was heard.
No court of law would ever come to conclusions such as those reached by this


Tribunal. Let me point out that I am not impugning their good faith or anything of the sort. One does not have to agree with what Rudi Dutschke stands for, or with his writings or his preachings, but one feels that an injustice has been done to him. I am not impressed with the arguments of those who say that if Rudi Dutschke were in charge of a State as Home Secretary he would not let in people who preached any sort of opposition to the regime. Of course, he would not, and 1 should not want to live in a State run by Rudi Dutschke. I should like to think that we are far more generous than France, which has turned him down. I do not see why we should be any less generous than Denmark, which has allowed him in.
I do not think that I need go over the evidence which has been given. I think that in all the circumstances this was an illiberal decision by the Home Secretary. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has tarnished what I had regarded as a liberal image. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will particularly appreciate that compliment, but he may take it in any way that he wishes. I hope that he will reconsider his decision.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: One of the most extraordinary features about the continuing debate on the case of Mr, Rudi Dutschke has been the changing path which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken. Before Christmas, in the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, many right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House understood that the Opposition wanted an assurance that the Government would be bound by the Appeals Tribunal. However, when the Appeals Tribunal found for the Government, they changed their attack to the Appeals Tribunal, but not to its decision. Thus, we ended with the not-toounfamiliar situation of the Labour Party in Opposition attacking what had been done by the Labour Party in Government, for surely it cannot be denied that the Tribunal was a creature of the Labour Government.
It is not the inconsistency of approach which I regard as the strangest feature of

this debate; it is the determination of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to be seen as the liberal defenders of an oppressed student. They call the Dutschke decision, as it was called just now by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), an illiberal decision. They pretend that it is a denial of justice. They say that a country which once housed Marx, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, could certainly afford Mr. Dutschke.
Above all, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite try to imply that they are the true defenders of free speech in this country. But they forget that, in office, they did not allow Mr. Dutschke into this country without conditions, the main condition being one which went to the heart of the man himself. Although, as the Tribunal said, Dutschke was and is an exceptional, highly developed man politically, they made it a condition, or at least they accepted that it would be a condition, that he should not take part in any political activity. In other words, they told a politician that he should not take part in politics.
Such was the so-called liberal policy of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that they could not steel themselves to allow him in without conditions, so they compromised. I suggest that that compromise was no more than a sham. First, because the condition is objectionable in principle. It made Dutschke, if not a second-class citizen, certainly a second-class resident. What is the definition of "second-class" in this context if it is not somebody prevented from doing things which are legal and proper for the rest of the population? Had Mr. Dutschke been allowed to pursue his studies, which I understand is the overwhelming feeling of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would presumably have been content to allow him to be a second-class student deprived of following his interest in one of the most natural places in which it could be followed.
The second reason that the original condition of no political activity is objectionable is on the ground of practice. It is impossible to define "political activity". I suggest that the condition which was imposed on his entry could not be enforced. Therefore, it was a sham, for at one and the same time the Labour Government were saying that it


was desirable that limits should be imposed upon his freedom but that the method by which those limits were to be imposed was unenforceable.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: With the leave of the House. I have only four or five minutes to speak if the Home Secretary wants 10 minutes in which to reply.
This debate has been disquieting in some ways, but in other ways valuable, too, because, even in the intemperate speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman is just coming in. I was referring to his intemperate speech. But even that had the effect of focusing attention upon the defects in the tribunal procedure. It is all very well to be wise after the event. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend who conducted the opposition on the Bill in Committee made none of these points before the event which he has made after the event. However, they were fully in all our minds.
The question is whether we can devise a better procedure. The Home Secretary has said that he would consider withdrawing these cases from the tribunal. I have considered that matter. We should consider whether the right hon. Gentleman should resume responsibility and the House be able to question him in the form of a debate like this. These are not open-and-shut matters, although the approach of the right hon. Gentleman would not assist a temperate discussion of the matter.
There is, then, the question of the hybrid procedure, which again is a difficult matter to decide. I certainly should not hold it against the Home Secretary if, when we have got away from heat engendered by this case, he wanted to have further discussions on the matter. On the whole, at any rate for some time, I should prefer to carry on the appeals procedure, with all the obvious defects, until we have had more experience of it.
I was alarmed at the way in which the procedure of the Tribunal was conducted. I did not think that it would go that way when we were discussing it in the House. I thought that the Tribunal would take charge of the proceedings, not the Attorney-General and defending counsel. I thought that

the Tribunal would be putting the main points. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and I were present. What was painfully disquieting, like a trial, was the fact that the Attorney-General was putting his case, bringing out the questions as he saw them, and Mr. Dutschke's counsel was doing the same. That is not the way that the House—I hope that the Attorney-General will forgive me—saw this appeal tribunal going on when it was discussed. This matter should be looked into. We want, not necessarily, to bring in the atmosphere of the courts, but, if possible, to do justice to the man. With respect to the lawyers, the two things may not be the same in the end.
I hope that the Home Secretary will take the opportunity of spelling out again his philosophy on the matter. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman had thought about it carefully before, but he left the impression that in future the test is not what one does, which would be brought before the courts, but what one advocates and thinks. I cannot believe that the Home Secretary wants to go that way. I cannot believe that this would be it, although I see a philosophical difficulty where, on the one hand, a man advocates and instigates others to be violent and, on the other, he runs away and disappears behind the crowd when the trouble breaks out. There comes a moment when one has to say that the advocacy of violence can be more influential than carrying it out. I accept this, but I make two points.
First, I take a more robust view of our institutions and State than do the Government. I believe that the impression created by Dutschke on television and in the columns of The Times, for those who read it, is in itself a strengthening of democracy, not a weakening of it. The fact that the views which he advocated met with such repugnance is, in my view, a strengthening of our position—which is not strengthened by shutting out the man so that he cannot advocate them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to spell that out again.
I believe that what the debate has revealed—and it has been an interesting debate—is that there is a difference between the two sides of the House. One side prefers security, while the other prefers our liberal traditions. I believe that


what hon. Gentlemen opposite have done is to elevate security to a level that is not required by our people at the present time. In that sense—and they will constantly need to be reminded of this—freedom is committed to their care, but they must not panic at the first sign of any attack that is made on it and give way to the sort of correspondence which many of us have been receiving. I believe that there is this difference, and it is right that the House should mark it out.
On the issue as presented to us today, I am in no doubt that we should come down on the side of our liberal traditions, and that this country is in a position to withstand any attacks that are made upon it.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I hope that I may have the leave of the House to speak again.
I am not in very much disagreement with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on a number of things. The present situation with regard to the appeals tribunal is not right. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General feels that The situation is not satisfactory. He conducted the proceedings before the Tribunal with great dignity, and he took great care, in the way in which he conducted them, to see that everything that could be made public within the limits of national security was made public, but he feels, and he has so told me, that this is not working out as the House thought it would, and I think that further thought should be given to this matter.
I do not think that there is all that difference between us on the big issue of the concept of national security. What I say is not that I intend to extend the concept of national security, but that events have done that. We have seen it in Northern Ireland. We have seen how national security can be threatened internally as well as externally, and the security services must be deployed to protect the peaceful atmosphere against internal threat just as much as against external threat.
I give the House the assurance that as regards the activities of the security services there has been no change in policy

or practice between successive Governments, but I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's basic point that this is an issue between security and liberal tradition. The fundamental point is that without security one cannot, in practice have a liberal tradition.
I propose to say a few words about the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) who attacked me in terms which I thought were a little intemperate and, I would say, out of character. I do not think that he means it, but he always says it. I am concerned to answer the points made by him, as they are important.
The hon. Gentleman came to see me for what I understood to be a private discussion. Whenever I see an hon. Member I do not usually have anyone with me, and no record is kept. I therefore cannot quote the record, but my recollection is not the same as the hon. Gentleman's. I have not quoted from the discussion, because I thought that it was confidential.
The hon. Gentleman asked why did I not tell him that an appeal was pending. The answer is that at that time Mr. Dutschke had not decided to make an appeal. He asked why I said that what I then thought was final. The answer is that I did not want to delude him, but to make it quite clear that, having listened to his persuasive and sincere arguments, I intended to adhere to my own view. He asked why I did not say that an appeal was possible. The answer is that he was a Member of Parliament when the 1969 Act was passed and I assumed that he knew that. Finally, he asked why I did not specify the ways in which Mr. Dutschke had broken his undertakings so that, those having been specified, Mr. Dutschke could refute them. The answer is simple. It is that it would be wrong for me to do so and I would not contemplate giving the hon. Gentleman information of a security character. Those are the answers to his questions.

Mr. Michael Foot: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman mention the word "security"? He did not mention it at all then.

Mr. Maudling: I would not make known to him security considerations in


a case of this kind. I gave the hon. Gentleman the reasons for my decision, and they remain the reasons for it.
I do not believe that it is right in principle, or enforceable in practice, to maintain a condition of no political activity on a person resident in this country, but when it was argued on appeal that Mr. Dutschke had kept his undertakings, when it was argued that this was the main reason why I was wrong, then it was necessary for me to produce the evidence, which I was able to get because of my position, to refute that argument.
We are coming to the end of the debate. I understand that there is to be a Division, and I want to be quite clear about the issue on which the House will be dividing.
There are many things on which we are agreed. There is agreement in our concern about reconciling national security with freedom of speech. There is concern about the way in which this Tribunal, set up by the House, has operated in practice. On what are we divided? I understand that we are divided on this specific case, and I understand, too, that my decision is being called into question, as it should be, by the House of Commons—because I believe that in matters of this kind the Home Secretary should take his decision on the information that he has available, and on the basis of what he believes to be right for this country, and that if he chooses wrongly, the House of Commons should condemn him.
Let us see what the issues are here. This gentleman, Mr. Dutschke, was admitted to this country when he was still gravely wounded. That was in late 1968. He was admitted on very strange conditions imposed by my predeccessor, conditions which derived from his political record in the past and, in particular, on his advocacy of the use of force to obtain political ends. These conditions were imposed, I think rightly, and my predecessor was right, on compassionate grounds, to admit him for medical treatment.
He came here for medical treatment, volunteering, and subsequently accepting in further letters, not to take any part in

political activities, accepting quite explicitly that he would not become a student at a university, and accepting quite explicitly that when his medical treatment was over he would leave the country. Those are the simple facts, which cannot be denied, of the way in which he came to this country by my predecessor's decision which, as I say, I think was a right and proper decision.
On the evidence, upheld by the Tribunal, it appears that the condition of no political activity was broken. The decision which I took—not to allow him to depart from his original condition not to become a student—was based on information available to me from the security services, collected under the authority of my predecessor.
I believe that political restraint is wrong in principle, and unenforceable in practice. I agree that it would be wrong to withhold political freedom and the freedom of discussion about which people are talking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) said, people would be second-class residents if they were able to come here to study or to train but were not entitled to talk about politics. I think, therefore, that the condition of "no politics" is unacceptable, and one has either to admit Mr. Dutschke without any limitations on his political activities, save those of the law, or not admit him at all.
This issue was submitted to the Tribunal appointed for this purpose by the previous Government in accordance with the legislation passed by the previous Government. The case was heard by a Tribunal of five people, four of whom were chosen by the previous Government. They found that I was right in my decision, that I was right in the exercise of my discretion. They found that Mr. Dutschke had not kept the assurances given on his behalf, and that if he were to remain there would be a risk to this country.
The simple fact in this case is that the Home Office kept its part of the bargain with Mr. Dutschke. All that we asked him to do was to keep his part of the bargain with this country. If hon. Members of the Labour Party like to vote against that, let them do so.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Galpern, Sir Myer
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Albu, Austen
Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Allen, Scholefield
Golding, John
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Ronald King


Ashley, Jack
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oram, Bert


Barnes, Michael
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Padley, Walter


Bishop, E. S.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Paget, R. T.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Horam, John
Pannett, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pardoe, John


Bradley, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pendry, Tom


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest G.


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Rankin, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Richard, Ivor


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cronin, John

Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil



Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lamond, James
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leonard, Dick
Silkin, Rt. Hn John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Sillars, James


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McBride, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Driberg, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddarts, David (Swindon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edelman, Maurice
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Ellis, Tom
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Fred
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tinn, James


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Tomney, Frank


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Urwin, T. W.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Foley, Maurice
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Michael
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Ford, Ben
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Freeson, Beginald
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

The House divided: Ayes Noes 295.

Whitehead, Phillip
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. William Hamling and


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. James Hamilton.


William, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Langford-Halt, Sir John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Gilbert


Astor, John
Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fowler, Norman
MacArthur, Ian


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, R. A.


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McLaren, Martin


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Batsford, Brian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
McMaster, Stanley


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maddan, Martin


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gorst, John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Blaker, Peter
Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mather, Carol


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus


Boscawen, Robert
Green, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Bowden, Andrew

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Braine, Bernard
Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bray, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Brewis, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Miscampbell, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Molyneaux, James


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Money, Ernie


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hay, John



Carlisle, Mark
Hayhoe, Barney
Mornis, Charles (Davizes)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David


Channon, Paul
Hicks, Robert
Murton, Oscar


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Normanton, Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Clegg, Walter
Holt, Miss Mary
Ogden, Eric


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally


Coombs, Derek
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cooper, A. E.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Osborn, John


Cordle, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian


Crowder, F. P.
James, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Curran, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pounder, Rafton


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dean, Paul
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dixon, Piers
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kilfedder, James
Raison, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Eliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Farr, John
Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon







Ridsdale, Julian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburg, W.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Robersts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stokes, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wall, Ptrick


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Sutcliffe, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Rost, Peter
Tapsell, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Weatherill, Bernard


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Edward M. (G' gow, Cathcart)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sharples, Richard
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; whitby)
Temple, John M.
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Simeons, Charles
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Soref, Harold
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Speed, Keith
Trew, Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Spence, John
Tugendhat, Christopher



Sproat, Iain
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOSES:


Stainton, Keith
Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Regional Eyre and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Jasper More.


Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 18th January]

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to move Amendment No. 349, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from 'associations' to end of line 20.
Not only does the Amendment seek to delete certain words from the Clause; it also demands an explanation from the Minister about the use of those words. I will do my best not to transgress on the ground which has already been covered by the Committee, but I wish at the outset to put on the record the fact that my hon. Friends and I take severe objection to some of the strictures which the Secretary of State tried to administer last night. We recall what he said on Second Reading, when he declared:
Clause 1 lays down the basic purpose and principles by which we ask the whole Bill to be iudged."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 14th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 963.]
Having made that statement, there was little point in the right hon. Gentleman indicating last night that the Clause was a general statement of principle which had been agreed throughout the country. We part company with him over this. On the one hand he wants the whole Bill to be judged by the Clause, and, on the other, when we attempt to examine the meaning behind the Clause, the right hon. Gentleman declares, in effect, "We have already judged the issue. These principles are agreed and there is no point in debating them."
I regret to have to mention the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He made a statement similar to that made by the Minister about judging this Measure. He also said that in days gone by these words might have been part of the Preamble to the Bill, in which case it would not have been subject to debate except on Second Reading.
The Secretary of State raised objection to the inclusion of the words "voluntary

basis", arguing that they were meaningless. I turn that argument on him because the words we propose to delete are meaningless except, perhaps, in a social or public opinion context. If the Government wish to use words like "responsible" and "orderly" for anything other than a public relations exercise, we should be given an explanation to show that these words are not merely being used as a gloss on "free" or as something with which to bash the trade unions.
Unfortunately, when hon. Gentlemen opposite use the words "responsible" and "orderly" in relation to trade union behaviour, they usually use them as a public relations exercise against the trade unions. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that free trade unions are not representative of those whose interests they represent?

Mr. David Mitchell: Would the hon. Gentleman apply those terms to a union which prohibited members with a particular political persuasion from standing for office?

Mr. Douglas: Membership of a political party has very little to do with any trade union representing a body of workers.
I was asking whether the Minister thinks that some free trade unions are unrepresentative. If so, will he give examples? Can he give examples of trade unions which are irresponsible? Obviously "responsible" in this context reflects the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite consider the national interest. There have been occasions in the history of industrial relations when, in terms of the national interest, trade unions may have acted irresponsibly, but that is in the past.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman take this point of view. He will recall that there have been many occasions when small splinter unions have been generally opposed not only by well established trade unions but also by the Labour Party. Is he now saying that small splinter unions are wholly unrepresentative or representative of those they claim to represent?

Mr. Douglas: That is not the way the Government see it. They are arguing for free and responsible trade unions within the context of what they define as the


national interest. There have been occasions, especially in the 1930s, when trade unions have opposed Government policy by arguing, for instance—as they might be arguing today—for high wages or opposing reductions in wages. The conventional Government wisdom of that period was to oppose trade unions which argued for increased wages or resisted reduction in wages. When we examine the history of that period we find that it was not the conventional wisdom of the Government at that time which was right but the trade unions. What right hon. and hon. Members opposite resent on the part of trade unions is that trade unions can have a view and act as an organ of countervailing power against Governments. That is why they use the words "orderly" and "responsible".
Let me turn to the word "effective". The complaint which hon. and right hon. Members opposite are preferring against the trade unions is not that the trade unions are ineffective but that, in the context of the policy which the Government wish to impose on the nation, the unions are too effective. If one examines the statement in relation to the national interest submitted by the Treasury to the Wilberforce Tribunal, and if one examines the Chancellor's speech on 11th January, one sees that in relation to their members' interests the trade unions, from the Government's point of view, are being too effective. In looking at the words in the Bill, the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask for trade unions to be responsible within their context but at the same time effective within the context of union membership.
These words are a gloss, because hon. and right hon. Members opposite are endeavouring in the Bill to put trade unions into a legal and economic context. The Government refuse, in the latter quarters of the twentieth century, to recognise that the problem facing industrial relations is not one of legality or economics, but one of sociology.
The words which the Government wish to have in the Clause add nothing in terms of meaning and in terms of elaborating the words that we wish to have in the Bill, that the trade unions should remain entirely free.

Mr. Gower: I should have thought that far from demonstrating some desire on

the part of the framers of the Bill to produce some formula which would enable them to bash the unions, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, these words rather tend to reveal the care which has been given to the difficult undertaking of evolving a formula by which we can achieve the sort of trade unionism, and the sort of relationship between the trade unions and the employers' organisations, which will enable our future labour relations to be far more productive of economic advance than they have tended to be in recent years. The hon. Gentleman objects, somewhat surprisingly in some respects, to the term:
… representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers …
Take the word "representative". I should have imagined that nobody in this Committee would want to have associations of employees or of management or employers which were unrepresentative. To have such unrepresentative organisations, on either side, would be conducive to creating a sort of inertia or a complete failure to achieve any sort of relationship. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not pleading for unrepresentative organisations on any side of industry. Surely he and his colleagues would want trade unions and employers' organisations of the future to be as wholly representative as possible.

Mr. R. T. Paget: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, why is it that it is to be only workers' trade unions which shall be independent? Apparently, the employers' associations do not have to be independent. That is rather odd.

Mr. Gower: That is an interesting point, but it is not one taken up by the mover of the Amendment. We are discussing the words which the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) wishes to remove from the Bill. We are not discussing the words which he might have wished to include in the Bill.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) obviously has not read paragraph (c) which specifically states:
… trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations".


That seems to cover very fully the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Paget: Paragraph (c) states:
The principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations …
The word "independent" applies to the trade unions, and not to the employers' associations. That is simply the grammar.

Mr. Gower: That is a point of some interest, but, as I said, it is not one which has been raised by the mover of the Amendment. His point was that we should delete from the Bill the words "representative, responsible and effective"—not the word "independent".
It is highly desirable, as I have said, that the bodies on either side, in all parts of industry, should be as representative as possible, and that in the same sense they should be wholly responsible bodies on either side. The best persons who participate in industrial relations in any part of industry would not wish to be associated with irresponsible bodies but would want to be associated with responsible trade unions and employers' organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would also wish to see bodies on both sides of industry wholly responsible in this connotation.
Finally, the whole country has a deep stake in this further wording. Our whole industrial and economic future demands that we must have effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers. Can it be suggested in any part of the Committee that this has been the case in the recent past, or in the years since the Second World War? We have had good industrial leaders; we have had great trade union leaders; and we have had enlightened management. But unfortunately our economic and industrial history in recent years has been disfigured by the kind of unnecessary, pettifogging, silly little disputes which have hampered the job of our industry in its desperate battle to retain the solvency and prosperity of our people.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Has not the hon. Gentleman overlooked the dominant fact in the Bill, that the Government are obtruding into the relationship between organised employers and organised workers by laying down

certain financial limitations? What is the use of talking about freedom between organised employers and organised workers when we have a Bill of this kind before us?

Mr. Gower: I have been generous in giving way to the interventions. I hope that the House will not think I am wasting time by apparently taking longer than I intended. The Government are doing nothing of the kind. As my right hon. Friend has asserted on many occasions, we are merely trying to provide a reasonable legal framework in which the parties in industries shall in future operate sensibly and freely. I have yet to hear anyone say privately, whatever he may allege in public, that this has been the case in the past.
We want bodies which are effective for regulating these relationships in such a way as to ensure a greater degree of industrial peace than we have had. The country needs it desperately. We are up against the most formidable competitors in the world. We face serious economic competition from countries which are highly efficient, which have inherited different conditions, of course, and enjoyed certain advantages.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: The hon. Gentleman has talked about industrial peace. Can he explain why, in America, with the precise type of law that he favours, 400,000 men at 4,000 plants of General Motors lost more days in one dispute than we have lost in this country in two years?

Mr. Gower: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make that important point himself. But this country less than any other can afford to let this state of affairs continue. More than any other country, more than the United States, Germany and France, we depend on our exports and imports. We are in a category quite different from that of almost all our competitors. I hope, therefore, that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that the Bill is a sincere attempt to arrive at a reasonable formula to achieve these laudable objectives.

Mr. Paget: It appears to me that, to a considerable degree, the Solicitor-General has created his own troubles. As


the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said yesterday, this sort of Clause is neither within nor without the Bill, and I doubt whether it is of any help to anyone. However, if we are to make statements of general principle, economy of words has much to recommend it.
What I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to say in subsection (1)(c) is simply
… the principle of free association of workers and employers for the purpose of negotiation.
If he had said that, he would not have been in any trouble, and the words would have conveyed the same meaning, probably the meaning that he intended.
However, there is a sort of rococo embellishment of draftsmen by which all sorts of oddments are added, and those oddments tend to incite suspicion. For no apparent reason, one finds first a reference to free associations of workers having to be in independent trade unions, whereas those words are omitted when it comes to employers. I am sure that there is nothing sinister in the omission, but it causes one to wonder why, and it makes one suspicious.
That does not arise under this Amendment. However one reads on and comes to the words
… so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies.
The hon. and learned Gentleman finds himself in difficulties which were created for him by the Secretary of State. When the word "responsibly" occurred in paragraph (a), the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to accept that it meant merely "duly authorized", which is what it means here. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman said that it had to go further and bring in the public interest. If we go in for negotiations in which representatives do not represent their clients but must have regard to what the Government consider to be the public interest, we are straying into totaliarian concepts.

Sir Edward Brown: This is an extremely interesting argument, but two cases occur to me immediately. One was in 1970; the other in 1969. In those cases, two national executives negotiated a pay rise for their organisations, but their lesser brethren on the shop floor rejected them.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Lesser?

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those two cases, but to my mind they are too abstruse to be applied to the point that I am making, which is that if "responsible" in paragraph (c) mean "duly authorised to negotiate", no one can object. However, since the Secretary of State said that it means something else in paragraph (a) and that a representative is not free to negotiate since he has to have regard to what the Government consider to be the national interest, that would be contrary to the principles of free negotiation.
The trouble arises because of the addition of superfluous and silly words to the Clause which do not improve their meaning, and any reference back to other words which have been given different meanings raises quite unnecessary complications.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will deal with the difficulty by saying that he will look at the words again with a view to seeing whether they can be simplified. He does not need to say more than that. The principle should be the free association of workers and employers for the purpose of negotiation. Nothing else needs saying. It is quite unnecessary to hang round it all sorts of decorations which only create suspicion. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider what I have said.

Mr. Anthony Fell: During the period of my enforced retirement from the House of Commons from 1966 to 1970, several interesting things have happened, not all of them to the good. As a result of one of them, we lost many of our Preambles, which is now causing some difficulty, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pointed out.
I want first to take up a technical point on the Amendment. I am sure that it was not intended to lose the word "and". As printed on the Notice Paper, the Amendment reads
… leave out from 'associations' to end of line 20.
I am sure that that is not the intention and that the "and" should have remained.

An Hon. Member: It does not make any difference.

Mr. Fell: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view. However, in view of the amount of time that we shall spend discussing words on this Bill, it is not unimportant to get the words right. This happens to be one which, if the Amendment should be carried, will be lost, assuming that it is not corrected.
Every morning, people listen to the news on their radios. As often as not, they hear the latest report on the current strike. It is not surprising that people feel strongly that steps should be taken to deal with the situation. It cannot be highly controversial to say that. Therefore, it is not surprising that this Bill has been introduced.
We have an Amendment here which tries—

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is saying that when he switches on the radio in the mornings he hears a summary of the strikes of that day. Will he refresh our memories and list the number of strikes about which he has heard in the past seven days?

Mr. Fell: I do not want to be sidetracked. I want to make a slight contribution to this short debate on the Amendment, which I do not think is vastly important.
Up to a point at any rate, I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. The ordinary person reads that:
The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations with the following general principles,
Principle (c) is
the principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations, so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers;
The unbiassed person will see nothing wrong in that. But I of course take the point that people who are biassed and have a sort of persecution complex against the Government of the day will look in every line in an important Bill like this for what ghosts they can find and what damage they think will be done to their cause as a result of passing the Bill. The Opposition are right to do this; it is part of their job.
It may well be that a query can be raised about the words that the Opposition are trying to delete:
… so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies …".
We can see the point. Perhaps because I am not a master of words, I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. I, too, do not see the necessity for the words, and I do not know quite what they mean. [Interruption]. I am not destroying anything. I also want to know, and I am entitled to ask these questions. I believe that we have already achieved what we want without the addition of that phrase. We shall have more organised, representative and responsible bodies in all negotiations. Everybody takes that as a matter of course; it has already been stated in the Bill and everyone knows that it will happen. If the phrase were a rococo embellishment of the introduction to the Bill, no one would worry very much about it, but because it is in the Bill it seems to have caused a lot of trouble. A lot of fuss is being made about very little. I am certain that the Minister will explain exactly what is meant by
… so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies …".

Mr. Roy Hughes: The free association of workers in independent trade unions is for me an important principle, sufficient to stand alone in the Clause. That is why I feel that the words covered by the Amendment have become unnecessary.
I know that many of my hon. Friends will be very sceptical about what hon. Members opposite think about the term "representative". Hon. Members opposite probably think of a representative trade union as something like the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society or the staff associations in our principal banks and many other companies with staff workers.
As to the word "responsible", we ask, "Responsible to whom and to what?" When the Secretary of State was challenged on the word yesterday he failed to give a satisfactory definition.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has said that we are making up ghosts, but it is nothing like that. The Amendment is based on genuine fears.


We feel that the latter part of the Clause is in essence an attack on the freedom of the trade union movement.

[Mr. HAROLD GURDEN in the Chair]

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Fidler: I am not wedded to economy of words, nor am I a lover of rococo embellishments. Much has been made about government at a stroke, but there are some people who would like to have government by a strike. The hon. Gentleman asks, "Responsible to whom?" I read the Bill as saying not "responsible to" but "responsible for". Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it in some way denigrates responsible trade unions and their leadership to say that they should be
… so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations …
between the two sides? If he would delete the words, is he saying that he does not want them to be so described?

Mr. Hughes: My point was based on that raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown), who did not seem to understand that the rank and file of a particular trade union could overrule a decision made by higher executives.
I regard the leading trade unions in this country as essentially responsible. I would not put in the same category as the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, the organisations to which I have referred like the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society.
We should retain free and independent trade unions because they are the key to the voluntary system of industrial relations which has worked in this country so successfully, despite all the present misgivings, for a very long period. It is the free and independent trade unions that the Government are now so keen to try to undermine.
When the voluntary system was defended earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State referred to the remarks made as "nit-picking". That was an unfortunate expression, particularly coming from the right hon. Gentleman, because the retention of the voluntary principle is vital to the preservation of a free society. The restrictive State agencies that the Govern-

ment envisage are anathema to our voluntary system. The proposal is nothing but an attempt by the Government to put the trade union movement in a legal straitjacket.
Our record in industrial relations, based on the principle of the voluntary system, is not bad at all. It is far better than that in America, from which many of the proposals in the Bill have been stolen. I should have expected a Government apparently dedicated to the principle of historic freedom to be a zealous supporter of the retention of the voluntary system, and especially a Prime Minister who on 19th June last year, the day he was appointed to his high office, said that his essential wish was to build one nation. It does not look very much like that to me today.
There is a national obsession about strikes, I think because of Britain's economic difficulties since the end of the war, with the decline of Empire and so on. Instead of tackling the fundamental problems affecting our nation, we have tended to look for scapegoats. The most popular scapegoat of all has been shop stewards and those workers who go on strike. There were some hon. Members on this side, and for that matter a right hon. Lady on our Front Bench, who contributed to that state of affairs. I very much regret that and the events culminating in the publication of "In Place of Strife". I opposed the statutory incomes policy and that document.
The Press and the mass media generally have created an atmosphere in which trade unionists tend to be regarded as social outcasts, when really they are the people who produce the wealth of the nation. It is at this moment that the Government have chosen to tilt the balance in industrial relations even more in favour of the employers. They are keeping their promise to many great monopoly concerns which line the coffers of the Tory Party and enable it to pay for its elaborate and expensive election campaigns.

Mr. Fidler: Will the hon. Gentleman show me how there is in the Clause a tilting of the balance away from the unions in favour of the employers?

Mr. Hughes: I think that my arguments have been pretty clear and to the point.
The Bill is a fulfilment of an election pledge. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has said that what we say in a General Election campaign is irrelevant. Probably that is why he increased his majority at the last General Election, but, even in a good election for the Conservative Party, in Wales it was able to win only seven out of 36 seats. Part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency is in Cardiff, and if he is there on Saturday he will see one of the most massive demonstrations against the Bill that we have had so far throughout the length and breadth of the land.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I am just coming to the end of my remarks.
Many people will fight to retain the voluntary system of industrial relations based upon free and independent trade unions. Before this fight is finished, millions of trade unionists will be aroused and awakened to what is happening to the fundamental rights which have been won for them over the centuries.

Mr. David Mitchell: This is an extraordinary Amendment. It seeks to delete the word "representative" as defined in one of the objectives of the Bill. About 95 per cent. of our strikes are unofficial. This clearly indicates that, in terms of representing the point of view of the men on the workshop floor, there is a serious breakdown in communications. Surely hon. Members opposite wish to see built into the Bill a provision by which trade unions will be more representative than in the past.

Mr. Douglas: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been in a strike. Nevertheless, surely he recognises that men do not come out on strike for nothing and that strikes blow up for a whole lot of reasons. The feelings of the men when they come out on strike congeal around a whole lot of grievances which are related to industrial practices and have little to do with their representation. Indeed, it has nothing to do with representation, but the hon. Member is using the word as a synonym for authority and order.

Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to apply that thought to

some of the more recent prolonged disputes in which it was clear that there had been a breakdown in communication between the trade union leadership and the men on the workshop floor.
The second extraordinary point about the Amendment is that it seeks to delete the word "responsible". Not long ago in this Chamber I heard an ex-Minister on the benches opposite referring to having made agreements on behalf of his trade union with employers which meant one thing to the employers and a totally different thing to the union. I have not heard a more irresponsible approach to the conduct of industrial relations and the making of collective bargaining than that admission. Therefore, we have seen reinforced in this Chamber recently the great need to ensure that we have a basis of both representation and responsibility and, indeed, effective bodies for regulating industrial relations.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I have already given way and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. It is extraordinary that we should be asked to delete from the Bill a proposal that trade unions should be "representative, responsible and effective", which is one of the crying needs of the present day.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: I sometimes wonder whether the Conservative Party knows anything about the trade union movement. I am getting a little fed up with being lectured by hon. Members opposite on representative democracy. From a party which has only just learned to elect its own leader instead of allowing him to emerge, this is a strange doctrine. Furthermore, bearing in mind that until recently they expected a Speaker to emerge rather than to be elected, it is a strange doctrine that they now seek to foist on to the trade union movement. I will tell them something about it.
I have been a member of a trade union for the whole of my working life. I have the honour to be a member of two trade unions. I will tell hon. Members opposite how I elect my officers. I belong to the Electrical Trades Union. It would be as well if hon. Members opposite realised


just how representative the leadership of that union is.

Sir E. Brown: Now.

Mr. Stoddart: Well, we are talking about reform. The E.T.U. is a trade union which has reformed itself without any legislation and that is precisely what we are asking should happen with the trade union movement. That is why we want things done on a voluntary basis.
The members of the E.T.U. elect the leadership by direct ballot conducted by an independent organisation. I therefore elect directly my general president, my general secretary, my executive and my national officers. What could be more representative than that? This goes for most other trade unions as well, where the membership is directly concerned in electing its officers at national level and its own leadership. Now the Government seek to slander the trade unions by putting in words which have absolutely no meaning.

Sir E. Brown: I agree readily that the E.T.U. is very much reformed, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that it was only through the courts that we were able to expose what was going on in the E.T.U. It was ordinary trade unionists like myself who got together and exposed that particular racket. The hon. Gentleman knows it. We had to get to a court of law to expose the racket going on in that organisation.

Mr. Stoddart: I cannot recall the hon. Gentleman having anything to do with the reforms in the E.T.U. They were brought about, even through the courts of law, but nevertheless it was the membeirship itself which insisted that the reforms be made. We are back once again to the membership taking action and doing the job without any legislation. Indeed, in effect the hon. Gentleman is speaking against the Bill because what he is saying is that we have legislation already which can deal with abuses which might occur from time to time in the trade union movement. Let us look at the question of responsibility.

Mr. Fidler: The hon. Gentleman says that the description the Opposition propose to delete is a slander on the trade unions. I have not heard him say that he regards it as a slander on the em

ployers. Again I ask whether he sees an imbalance between employers and trade unions. Can he explain whether he regards this description as a slander on the employers?

Mr. Stoddart: I do not know how the employers' organisations are organised. If the hon. Gentleman feels that they need some legislation to make them more representative, I am sure that he will say so, but I have no experience of them and, therefore, I cannot tell him.
I turn to the word "responsible". Most trade unions, like my own, are concerned to represent the interests of their members. That is their job—make no mistake about that. Their job is to help the people who pay them, and the people who pay them work on the shop floor or in the offices, or wherever it might be. In this country we have been fortunate in having a trade union movement which is prepared in doing its job nevertheless to take account of the national interest.
Who in this country has been shouting louder for better productivity and acting upon it than the trade union movement itself? Jack Jones has been calling for it; Hugh Scanlon has been calling for it; my own general secretary and general president have been calling for it, and, indeed, they have co-operated to get it in the electricity supply industry so that that industry is at the top of the productivity table. They have been acting responsibly. What have they got for it? They have been slandered and attacked at the behest of hon. Members opposite because they have acted responsibly and have got the electricity supply industry a better productivity record than any other industry in the country, thereby keeping the price to the consumer down.

Mr. John Page: rose—

Mr. Stoddart: I have given way enough. I want to close my remarks.
What I am seeking to show is that the trade union movement consists of a highly responsible body of people who have done more to improve the lot of all the people in this country than has any other organisation I know. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will act sensibly and responsibly and vote for the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I want to deal to some extent


with the point raised by a number of hon. Members, not least by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—namely, an analysis of the objective and form of this Clause. There has been much historical analysis of preambles and what has happened to them. It is wrong to say that preambles have been abortive and have disappeared altogether. They have fallen out of fashion.
The objective of this Clause and of these principles is twofold. First, to lay the foundation for the matters with which the Secretary of State should deal in the code dealt with in Clause 2, and, secondly, to lay down principles to which the institutions should have regard when interpreting, construing or applying the legislation. When points are in doubt in that area, the Registrar or the Industrial Relations Court, for example, have to consider the extent to which a trade union is or is not complying with its rules. It is in this way that the institutions would have regard to the extent to which the principle which the Committee is now discussing was being promoted. That is the objective of the Clause.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton advanced some criticism of, as he put it, the rococo extravagance of language in this modest little subsection, criticism which I regard as particularly misplaced. He asked a specific question about the function of the word "independent" and questioned why it was applied to trade unions and not to employers' associations. The answer is that at the relevant point in the Bill, a trade union, in order to qualify for registration, has to be independent whereas an employers' association has not, and the reason for that—this meets the point made by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes)—is to ensure that the trade unions are indeed independent and that bodies like the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society would not so qualify. Staff associations would have to demonstrate that they were free from employer domination before they could qualify as independent trade unions.
We have not yet had it suggested that employers' associations are at immediate risk of worker domination, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton thought that the word "independent"

ought to be attached to that aspect of the matter, no doubt the question could be considered afresh. The phraseology here is, in fact, an illustration of the economy of language which we have tried to use.
The objective of the words against which the Amendment is directed, namely, the principle of free association in independent trade unions and associations, is to be attached to the concept that those bodies should be
so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations".
It is worth bearing in mind that in the last Government's published Bill, the whole of Part VI, running to about two and a quarter pages, dealing with the Trade Union Development Scheme—which had no particular friends on either side of the House—was designed to assist unions
in formulating proposals for measures of development with a view to securing improvements in efficiency, and assisting them in carrying out such proposals".
All that is paraphrased in the present subsection by the simple word "effective" I dare say that the objective expressed in the word "effective" here is much in line with the objective which the last Government had in mind but which they expressed in as many Clauses in Part VI of their last Bill as there are words in this paragraph. If it be said that we are putting before the Committee a rococo provision, I can only say that the corresponding Part of the last Bill was a rococo revival revisited.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman identify exactly the passage to which he is referring in the previous Bill?

The Solicitor-General: The whole of Part VI, the Trade Union Development Scheme. I was reading from Clause 64(1) (b). the first of the six Clauses dealing with that.

Mr. Walker: That was never before the House.

The Solicitor-General: No, and it is not before the Committee now, but it was what the last Government saw fit to bring to the light of day, as opposed to other provisions which were under


consideration, in various stages of gestation and abortion, in "In Place of Strife". So one may, presumably, attach some importance to it.

Mr. Walker: I am sorry to keep bobbing up and down, but I am trying to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting that the form of words in the present Bill follows the form of words used in my right hon. Friend's Bill in 1970? If so, would he put his finger on the precise point? In response to what he has said so far, I have tried to find it, but I cannot.

The Solicitor-General: May I deal with the substantive points on the four effective words here with which the Amendment deals and answer the hon. Gentleman in that way? The words here are:
so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective".
The function of the words "so organized" is to acknowledge that in trade unions and employers' associations organisation is a matter of importance. One aspect of the matter is that such organisation should be effective. That was the point to which Clause 64(1) (b) of the last Government's Bill was directed-
… proposals for measures of development with a view to securing improvements in efficiency"—
and so on. That is the first point I am making. The more general point is that it must be right for one of the principles set down at this point in the Bill to have regard to these three aspects, namely, that organisations and unions should be representative, should be responsible, and should be effective.
The merit and importance of "representative", for example, is that a union which is being effectively representative will avoid the difficulties of shop-floor repudiation of negotiated deals.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

8.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Again, to be representative, a union must be effective and capable of taking up grievances of the kind to which the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) referred in one of his interventions. That is one of the aspirations, and that is what "representative" is designed to identify.

Mr. Orme: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman advocating that members of a trade union have, or should have, no right to repudiate any negotiations which a union might take up on behalf of its members, that the members ought not to be consulted and ought not to have the right to accept or reject? Surely, that is democracy.

The Solicitor-General: That is precisely the point I am making. A union which is effectively representative should be in touch with, aware of, and responsive to views of that kind; otherwise it would appear to be unrepresentative. The aspiration is the same.

Mr. Roland Moyle: rose—

The Solicitor-General: I must be allowed to deal with the point. An illustration of what I am putting to the Committee is the point which the Donovan Commission itself made—it is familiar to hon. Members on both sides—about the difficulty of having effective communications between the shop floor and the unions' representatives or leadership. That is the aspiration here, that it should be representative in that way.

Mr. Moyle: The Solicitor-General is talking about the need for the trade union leadership to be representative of its members, but is that what the Bill requires? Let us assume that the members of a trade union produce a set of rules designed to give them representativeness, and the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations disagrees with those rules. He has the right to overrule them or to amend them. In the ultimate, therefore, is not the effect of the Bill to say that a trade union shall be representative of the views of the Chief Registrar?

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I suppose that there could be a theoretical risk of the Bill producing that result if these words were to be deleted. The point is that the relevant Clauses—we have not come to them yet—about the matters with which union rules should deal and the way that certain of them should be dealt with, to which the Registrar will have regard, are designed to secure effective machinery for elections


and effective participation in elections. We believe that they are designed to help unions to be representative both in themselves and in their rules.
Were there a danger of the Registrar looking at such rules and saying, "This rule may or may not comply with Clause X and I must construe it accordingly", he would say, "I must remember that the function which I am discharging is to see that the unions are representative, responsible and effective, so I must lean in the direction of a construction which will see that it is representative".

Mr. Douglas: rose—

The Solicitor-General: I do not want to give way too often.

Mr. Douglas: This is an important point. It seems to me that the Solicitor-General is construing these words in such a way as to indicate that the reason why the Government persist in their retention is that they give some support to the way in which the Secretary of State will draw up his code. Will he draw up his code along the lines which the Solicitor-General has been depicting? This should be made clear, because, if he does that, he will be embarking upon an extremely dangerous course.

The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to be disrespectful, but, having tried to follow hon. Gentlemen opposite as best I can, I see different currents of criticism directed at the formulations which the Committee is now discussing. On the one hand, it is said that these are such impeccably right propositions that they are—to borrow the phrase used by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) yesterday—no more than a fig-leaf of respectability for disreputable intentions. That is one argument, that they are too good to be true. The other is that, construed in the most sinister way, they are very menacing words.
I put it to the Committee that the aspiration that unions and associations should be "representative, responsible and effective" is no more than the common ground among almost all informed critics on both sides of the debate who have looked at this part of the problem. I do not want to be tendentious.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: The Solicitor-General has explained how the Bill will seek to ensure that the trade

unions are representative. Can he explain how it will seek to ensure that employers' associations are representative?

The Solicitor-General: It will do so within the corresponding provisions of Part IV of the Bill which are applied by Clause 65 to employers' associations. The same principles apply. It may be that the question will arise in a different form and that is why we have this general proposition because, as the Committee will appreciate, there will be different structures.
I think that I have dealt with "representative" and "organization". "Responsible" is a word upon which several hon. Members have touched. It is not a word which anyone would criticise in saying that organisations, unions or employers' associations should conduct their affairs with responsibility, not irresponsibly, having regard to the great importance and effectiveness of trade unions and employers' associations in any area, particularly in good industrial relations with which the legislation is concerned.
Again I do not want to be tendentious but if I may take an example from the paragraphs in "In Place of Strife"—[Interruption.]—I apologise for troubling hon. Members opposite by referring to that document. I will do it shortly. A good illustration is the section in that document dealing with the necessity in the last resort for the Secretary of State, as it was then, perhaps to make an order to require a union which used coercive action against the implementation of the C.I.R. recommendations on recognition to accept the recommendations. It is when one comes to the argument set out in paragraph 60 identifying the extent to which it is possible for a union, as for any individual or employer or association to act irresponsibly, that one comes up against the question of responsibility.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not get away with this. Surely he acknowledges that there is a world of difference between the language used in a White Paper and that which has to be used in a Statute and subsequently interpreted by the courts according to the letter of the law. He surely acknowledges that it is unfair to try to draw comparisons between the language he is using in the Bill and the


language used in the White Paper. He has twice tried to do this, unfairly, improperly, even misleading the Committee, making comparisons between the language used in the earlier Bill, when there was no common ground, and now comparing what was in the White Paper with the wording in his own Bill. He must accept that if he does this we shall keep on interrupting him to ensure that he gets it right.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that I am getting it right. I am not comparing the language of "In Place of Strife". I seek not the word "responsible" in paragraph 60 although I daresay that I could find it. I am not concerned to make that kind of argument. I do not wish to mislead the Committee. What I am saying is that these three words "representative", "responsible" and "effective" identify concepts which are common ground to the diagnosis made in a document like "In Place of Strife" and in Donovan, and it has not been suggested by anyone that it is an unworthy or wrong aspiration for trade unions or employers' associations to be "representative, responsible and effective".
Part of the argument, which is the ambiguity that has to be met, is that the words are unnecessary because such organisations are "representative, responsible and effective". It is only to make sure that those propositions are had regard to by the Secretary of State and the agencies when they come to be interpreted that these words are here and are an important part of the Bill. It is not something to be criticised that legislation which comes before the House and is considered here in Committee contains words which are simple and straightforward. Just as in many other situations, standards have to be assessed according to whether something is or is not reasonable. These are the objectives, part of the principle underlying the purpose of the Bill. It is on this basis that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, on the basis that no case has been made in support of the elimination of these words, in principle or in detail.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Solicitor-General put his finger on the argument when he said that the main

point was that the general principles outlined in the Bill will be considered by the various courts established by it. The meaning of the words in the general principles of the Bill become of great importance. We would all be happy if everyone put precisely the same meaning on words, but we know that they do not. We know that lawyers—we have had many examples in the debate—have interpreted a number of words in different ways. If that is the position it is understandable that the Opposition does not want further to confuse an already confusing situation.
That is precisely what would happen it the words in the Bill are left. That is the key to the argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Preambles had gone out of fashion. I wonder why and I wonder why in this particular Bill. I suspect that the basic reason in this case is because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wanted to slip through particular ideas and concepts without spelling them out in any detail.
8.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to ask his back-bench friends to refrain from making lengthy speeches in this Committee, not because hon. Members can be accused of filibustering but because every time some hon. Gentlemen open their mouths they indicate how anti-union they are. Several speeches have been made this evening which show the thinking of some hon. Gentlemen on trade unions. One hon. Gentleman said that what some of the Opposition wanted was government by strikes. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) said that every time the housewife switches on her wireless in the morning she hears news of a strike, and she thinks that something should be done. That is why the Bill has been introduced. The Government think that it is electorally popular. It does not matter what the Bill does, it does not matter if it is totally irrelevant to industrial relations. The Government just think that they must do something. The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to advise his hon. Friends not to make speeches of this sort, although we welcome them. The more speeches of that sort there are, the more people will understand what is behind the Bill and see that it will not improve industrial relations.

Mr. John Page: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Unless the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) gives way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Heffer: I am not discourteous to hon. Gentlemen. I regularly give way, but we are trying to make progress and I hope that there will not be too many interruptions.
The view of my hon. Friends is that the Electrical Trades Union acted completely responsibly from the beginning to the end of the power workers' dispute, which is not finished even now. An hon. Gentleman opposite took part in a radio programme with me in which he said that the electrical workers were acting totally irresponsibly. He said that it was like a person standing next to someone who was on a kidney machine and saying to that person. "If you do not give me your wallet I will pull out the plug." That is the attitude which is adopted by some hon. Gentlemen. Who was making irresponsible statements? If a dispute is taken to a court of law what interpretation will be put on who was or was not responsible? It is open to interpretation.

Mr. John Page: rose—

Mr. Heffer: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as it is he to whom I have been referring.

Mr. Page: On that occasion the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was supporting the Electrical Trades Union in its fervent refusal to go to arbitration, although arbitration was included in the recent agreement. It was

the union's refusal to take the constitutional steps which made me say what I did, and I do not regret it.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said on 15th April that the unnecessary and damaging disputes of which we have seen all too many recently are totally incompatible with our economic objectives. Does the hon. Member for Walton agree with that?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman proves the point I am making. It is a question of the interpretation of responsibility. After almost a year of negotiation the Electrical Trades Union reached a state where it felt it was necessary to take official—not unofficial—and responsible action—

Mr. Page: Irresponsible action.

Mr. Heffer: Irresponsible to the hon. Gentleman and, therefore, if it had come before a court the argument would have been on whether the action was responsible or irresponsible. My hon. Friends feel that it is essential that these words should be excluded. The principle of free association of workers and independent trade unions and of employers and employers' associations is sufficient. Once anything is added all sorts of interpretations are possible and the situation becomes confused. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to vote for the elimination of these words.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 243, Noes 279.

Eadie, Alex
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Edelman, Maurice
Kinnock, Neil
Prescott, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lambie, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lamond, James
Price, William (Rugby)


Ellis, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


English, Michael
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


Evans, Fred
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Faulds, Andrew
Leonard, Dick
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Feltcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil
Roper, John


Forrester, John
McCann, John
Rose, Paul B.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sillars, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)

Silverman, Julius


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Small, William


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamling, William
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Stallard, A. W.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Harper, Joseph
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Strang, Gavin


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Millan, Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Taverne, Dick


Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Tinn, James


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Walden, Brian (B'm'h'm, All Saints)


Hunter, Adam
Oram, Bert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice
Wallace, George


Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley
Watkins, David


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Weitzman, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wellbeloved, James


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


John, Brynmor
Paget, R. T.
Whitehead, Phillip


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pendry, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest G.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Body, Richard
Cary, Sir Robert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boscawen, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bowden, Andrew
Chichester-Clark, R.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Churchill, W. S.


Astor, John
Braine, Bernard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Humphery
Bray, Ronald
Clegg, Walter


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brewis, John
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Coombs, Derek


Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cordle, John


Batsford, Brian
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cormack, Patrick


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bryan, Paul
Critchley, Julian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Crowder, F. P.


Benyon, W.
Buck, Antony
Curran, Charles


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Eir Eric
Dalkeith, Earl of


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Blaker, Peter
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Carlisle, Mark
Dean, Paul







Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dixon, Piers
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Drayson, G. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reed, Laurances (Bolton, E.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kennet (Rutland)
Robert, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter


Fidler, Michael
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Royle, Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fletcer-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, R. A.
Scott, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
McLaren, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fowler, Norman
McMaster, Stanley
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Simeons, Charles


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fry, Peter
Madden, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.
Soref, Harold


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Speed, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Spence, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Gower, Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburg, W.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stokes, John


Green, Alan
MisCampbell, Norman
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Sutctiffe, John


Grylis, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Gummer, Selwyn
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernie
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Hannan, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croyden, S.)


Havers, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tilney, John


Hay, John
Mudd, David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hayhoe, Barney
Murton Oscar
Trew, Peter


Heseltine, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Higgins, Terence L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hiley, Joseph
Normanton Tom
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hill James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Holt, Miss Mary
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hooson, Emlyn
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Patrick


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hornby, Richard
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Warren, Kenneth


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pardoe, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hutchinson, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Wilkinson, John


Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


James, David
Pike Miss Mervyn
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pounder, Rafton
Woodnutt, Mark


Jessel, Toby
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Worsley, Marcus


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Younger, Hn. George


Jopling, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Kilfedder, James
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Mr. Heffer: I beg to move Amendment No. 350, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'safeguards' to end of line 3.
We regard this Amendment as of some importance. The issue will be debated in greater detail at a later stage, but we must raise this question now because we are dealing with the general principles


of the Bill. If we leave in the concept of unfair industrial practices we will be conceding from the start that there should be unfair industrial practices. Therefore, the Amendment, which is also concerned with general principles, is designed to remove the concept of unfair industrial practices, as defined in the Bill, whether on the part of employers or workers.
Our view is that the unfair industrial practices proposed in the Bill are totally irrelevant to assisting better industrial relations. Not only are they irrelevant, but they are basically unfair to the trade union movement.
The Bill sets out 13 or 14 unfair industrial practices which affect the trade unions, and about 16 which affect the employers. I submit that the two lots of unfair industrial practices cannot be equated, because those which would operate against the unions and the workers are basically directed against the unions, making it difficult for them to carry out legitimate trade union activities, while those which are supposedly directed against the employers are, in many cases, also directed against the workers and the trade unions, and will, therefore, assist employers against legitimate trade unionism.
I am not saying that we condone unfair dismissals, because that is part of the unfair industrial practice. That is an issue which we think must be taken separately. It is dealt with in the Bill, as amended, by the use of the term "adequate safeguards". The provisions in the Bill which we presented to the House, but which was not considered by it, were much better than those in the Bill dealing with unfair dismissals, and we believe that the question of unfair dismissals can be dealt with at the appropriate place.
It is clear that at this stage of the discussion it would not be possible for me to outline all the so-called industrial practices listed in the Bill, and again most of these will be dealt with in greater detail at the appropriate place. Nevertheless, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to one or two of these unfair industrial practices which we consider to be of fundamental importance.
The Bill says that it will be an unfair industrial practice to induce or threaten to

induce a strike to persuade an employer to discriminate against any worker or person seeking work on the ground of his membership or non-membership of a trade union. That is essentially part of the argument against the closed shop. It is also part of the argument against a 100 per cent. organised trade union shop, which is not necessarily a closed shop in the terms of one union only being involved.
There are in this country about 22¾ million full-time employees. Nearly 13 million of them are in the trade union movement, and of those about 3 million are in post-entry closed shops, and three-quarters of a million in pre-entry closed shops. If the Bill goes through unamended and makes it an unfair industrial practice to induce or threaten to induce a strike to force an employer to agree, or to continue in force, a pre-entry closed shop, it will represent a serious attack on cherished rights of the trade union movement and could lead to chaos in certain industries. It could weaken the bargaining power of many trade unions, and could even put some trade unions out of existence. There are a number of trade unions, and two or three in particular, whose very existence depends on the pre-entry closed shop.
Such so-called unfair industrial practices would deny workers the right to strike for 100 per cent. trade unionism. This is an attack on fundamental trade union rights and has nothing to do with improving or assisting industrial relations. It is not fair to the trade unions for the Government to pretend that this provision is fair and constantly to hide behind the mask of fairness.
It is interesting to note that even the United States labour laws were amended in 1959 to allow for 100 per cent. trade unionism in industries such as construction, where the closed shop had been a long-established principle. This is another reason why we say that in some respects the Bill goes further than even the United States labour laws.
These so-called unfair industrial practices—this point is linked to the last—would prevent trade unionists from taking solidarity action. It will become an unfair trade union practice for workers to carry out the blacking of goods, yet this practice and the practice of taking


solidarity action are long-established fundamental principles involved in the carrying out of legitimate trade unionism.
Frequently trade unionists involved in disputes appeal to their fellow trade unionists for support. Indeed, a trade union could not hope to operate or win any battles unless it had the right to ask for this sort of support. Yet under the Bill and its unfair industrial practices provisions this fundamental right would be removed.
As for the blacking of goods, consider the situation confronting Post Office workers today, and remember they have never before in the history of their union been involved in an industrial strike. They may find that to win their battle they will have to appeal for the solidarity of the trade union movement and ask workers to refuse to handle goods which they would otherwise have been handling.
That is a perfectly legitimate trade union activity, but if this Bill is not amended the Post Office workers will, if they take that action, be acting illegally—and not in an unofficial but in an official dispute. I trust that this will be borne in mind. The balance of power in terms of unfair industrial practices is already weighted in favour of the employers. This further shift will weight it still further in their favour unless the Amendment is accepted.
It will require a battery of lawyers on both sides of industry to interpret what is and what is not an unfair industrial practice. Consider the arguments that will arise in the industrial courts on this issue. I imagine that the lawyers are already licking their lips. Perhaps lawyers on this side of the Committee could be forgiven if they wished to support the Bill because they must be aware that they will make a fortune out of it, and the trade union movement will suffer as a result.
9.0 p.m.
I will give some examples of how this will work unfairly. My first example relates to the construction industry and to the agency shop. We had this, incidentally, during the Second Reading debate, it is worth repeating. It is proposed that it would be an unfair industrial practice if workers induce or threaten to induce a strike to force an employer to introduce an agency shop

within two years of a ballot in which employees rejected the agency shop. In practice, this means, for example, that at the very early stages of a construction site, the workers could be induced, or there could be some persuasion from someone, to have a ballot for an agency shop.
There may be only a handful of workers at that stage, and most of them may not be members of a trade union. They could have the vote, and perhaps that would be that the majority was not in favour of an agency shop. Following that, despite the fact that the number of workers could build up to perhaps 2,000, for two years, the workers would not be allowed to take any action, and certainly not strike action, to force an agency shop, because that would be an unfair industrial practice. That is what we mean when we say that the Bill is tilted in favour of the employers and against the workpeople.
All the airy-fairy talk and this wonderful sort of cottonwool atmosphere which has been created about the fairness of the Bill is unmasked when one looks at the realities.
Second, also in relation to the building industry, one could have a situation where the main contractor decided to erect a scaffold which was unsafe. I can assure hon. and right hon. Members that that sometimes happens in the building industry. Those who look at the statistics of people killed or injured in that industry will know precisely what I mean by unsafe scaffolding. The painters' shop steward could say to his workpeople, "We will not allow you to use that particular scaffolding because it is unsafe". That is perfectly within the rules as laid down, and nothing could happen to him. But suppose that a sub-contractor was brought on to the site and then the painters' steward made such an approach to the sub-contractor's workers. Under the Bill he would be acting illegally. It would be an unfair industrial practice, and action could be taken against that steward. That is what it means in practice, and that is the reality of the Bill.
The Amendment is absolutely necessary. The very term "unfair industrial practice" is borrowed from the Taft-Hartley Act, which refers to "unfair labour practice". In the Taft-Hartley Act there are six such practices concerning trade unions. I should like to quote


from the speech made by Professor Wedderburn at the recent great meeting in London on 12th January, when he spoke about Clause 87:
Two leading American professors at Yale Law School put it well when they said about the similar Taft Hartley law in the U.S.A., that curtailing secondary action makes unions 'enter the economic struggle with one hand tied'.
That is precisely what the Bill does, and that is why we are opposed to this concept of unfair industrial practice. It would lay down a rigid set of conditions which are bound to be inappropriate on most occasions and are bound to be broken, and which will therefore create situations where legal action becomes possible.
We call upon the Government to accept our Amendment. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite genuinely believe in fairness, they will see the fairness of the case being put forward from this side of the House. This is not a filibustering effort. We want to argue the realities of what this provision means to trade unionists and workers. We feel that we have put forward a fair case, and we ask the Government to accept the Amendment. If for some misguided reason they do not accept it, my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide the Committee and vote for it.

Mr. Gower: I am sure that no hon. Member on this side of the Committee wants to do what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) seems to think. We have no intention of putting in this part of the Bill any provision designed to hurt individual trade unionists.
The hon. Gentleman has made his case fairly, clearly and reasonably. But perhaps for a moment he will acknowledge that the words to which he objects are attached to a provision which is of the greatest importance. The Amendment seeks to delete from the Bill the words
against unfair industrial practices …
The phrase is attached to the principle of freedom and security for workers. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want to express in the Bill our attachment to the idea of safety, freedom and security for workers. That is the basis of the insertion of this paragraph.

Mr. Dan Jones: It is the bait.

Mr. Gower: It is not the bait, as I shall explain in a moment. Surely it would be damaging to the freedom and security of individual workers if the words were deleted.
The first freedom to which the hon. Member for Walton referred was freedom from dismissal. I am sure that he will concede at once that it is highly important for workers in any industry to have that freedom.
He went on to explain the unfairness of forcing anyone to be a member of a trade union or of a named trade union. In theory, we should all like to see 100 per cent. trade union membership. That is highly desirable. If the Clause were designed merely for the convenience of employers or the Government of the day, it would be much easier to have compulsory 100 per cent. membership. For lots of employers and many Governments, it is highly inconvenient to have a multiplicity of unions representing one industry. One of the great assets on to which German industry has perhaps stumbled because of the last world war is that the workers in certain industries are represented by single unions.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Would not it be more accurate to draw attention to the number of trade unionists in West Germany? The proportion of workers unionised is between 25 and 30 per cent. Would not that more accurately reflect the attitude of the Conservative Party to trade unions?

Mr. Gower: I would prefer to see 25 per cent. of volunteers than 100 per cent. of forced men.

Mrs. Renée Short: That is an Aunt Sally.

Mr. Gower: It is not an Aunt Sally. It is an important matter. We want to see 100 per cent. union membership which is gained and earned by the effectiveness and efficiency of the trade union concerned. That is excellent. Provided that a union acts effectively, efficiently and fairly, over the years it should not be too difficult for it gradually to increase its membership on the basis of its performance as a union. We do not want a state of affairs where that is a matter of compulsion. I hope that hon. Members


will consider the freedom of the individual worker first. We all know the historical reason for such practices creeping in as a defence mechanism for unions which grew up in difficult conditions. In the conditions of today it is highly desirable that unions should achieve maximum membership by their effectiveness and efficiency, not by compulsion.
There is another important matter. Some eccentric people for reasons of conscience cannot undertake the duties of membership of a trade union. That may seem absurd to me and to hon. Members opposite. They may seem to us to be misguided, but I hope that we do not dismiss, their reasons.

Mr. Frank Tomney: In my long experience of workshop practice I have never known of such people, with an elastic conscience, who have refused to take the money the unions have earned.

Mr. Gower: That is completely irrelevant. I know people who for similar reasons refuse to exercise the democratic power to vote, but they do not refuse to accept the benefits of the society in which they live. It is just as silly, but there are people who for religious reasons which we cannot understand do not wish to be trade union members. Is it right that there should be anything in the Bill which would make it possible for them to be driven out of their jobs? It would be infamous. Let us have the maximum freedom and security for the individual.

Mr. Ronald Brown: If the freedom of the individual is involved, surely the Bill should not limit the freedom of other workers not to associate with such people?

Mr. Gower: We want a system under which every person in industry is free to join a union of his or her choice, which we hope will be the best union to represent workers in an industry. We hope that it will do the job properly and by virtue of its performance will soon attract 100 per cent. membership in that industry. We see nothing wrong in that.

Mr. Brown: There are many people in industry who just want the freedom to say, "We are fighting for the benefits in this firm. We do not associate with those who do not wish to be in the fight

with us." Under the Bill they will be charged with committing an unfair industrial practice. If we are to have freedom it must be freedom for all. Therefore the Amendment is right.

Mr. Gower: But the kind of freedom the hon. Gentleman proposes is completely intolerant of the minority. I believe that all decent people, whether in trade unions or employers' organisations, would not want that kind of freedom, which is designed to suppress minority opinion. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will feel that the purpose of the Clause is to ensure, as it says,
the principle of freedom and security for workers,
but that is not to be achieved by gross unfairness for a minority who take a different view. Let the trade unions or employers' organisations achieve their success by efficiency. That will be good for them, for the effectiveness of their industry and the economy of the country.
The hon. Gentleman dealt finally with solidarity action. It is easy to understand why those engaged in an industrial dispute should want others to take action to support them, although those others are not parties to the dispute. But such action can be grossly unfair. I have had conversations with people who have been involved in a subsidiary dispute, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that solidarity action is not always as popular as he would have us believe, and that many people who were involved in so-called solidarity action are very unhappy indeed about it.
The Clause is designed for the freedom and security of those employed in industry without inflicting unfairness, sometimes of a very cruel kind, involving throwing people out of an industry in which they have been employed into a world in which they cannot find employment. This goes to the very basis of our democratic freedom. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: I support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who, like me, was engaged in the construction industry. It is most informative to learn from him that the United States had to retrace its steps on its own legislation. Those of us


who have been involved in the construction industry recognise the dangers that the industry can face if the words we seek to delete are left in the Bill.
If the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) purports to be one of the torch bearers for 100 per cent. trade unionism, he and most of his hon. Friends should come right out into the open and make that clear to the country. If they did, we should not be considering the Bill now.
When we talk about a closed shop we must get things in their proper perspective. The hon. Gentleman talked about minorities being looked after. Where there is a closed shop the situation is usually that the majority of the workers on a site or in a factory want to become members of a trade union. After the majority of the members have joined a trade union, it is incumbent upon the minority, for reasons which are obvious and which I hope to prove to hon. Members opposite.
In many instances, a minority of the workers, encouraged by some unscrupulous employers, can do untold damage to the majority of the workers by carrying out practices and making decisions which are contrary to the interests of the majority of the workers in that industry or factory, whatever the case may be. The case is based also even on a Christian principle in that if, for instance, the minority are not prepared to join the majority on that basis, they should seriously consider their own situation because, in a closed shop, it is a prerequisite that, before they become employed in that factory, they either must take out a trade union card or be prepared to join a trade union.
I ask the Government to give this matter serious thought. Let them prove to us at this early stage of the proceedings that they are prepared to listen to a reasonably stated case, one which they themselves so far have said could be acceptable to them. If they show that desire at the outset, there is the distinct possibility that we on this side of the Committee will give more serious thought to some of the Amendments on the Order Paper and we might manage to make greater progress.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The Amendment would destroy the Bill—we

need make no bones about that. It seeks to remove completely the principle of fair industrial practices.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer) made that point. He believes that there are no answers to any of the problems we face other than at least trying to establish a series of unfair industrial practices, whether operated by employers or groups of employees. Obviously, he sincerely holds that view. I do not agree with him. I do not think that one can make anything of the Bill unless one lays down that there are certain practices which will be frowned upon and treated in a proper fashion. The Amendment would remove from the Bill any opportunity for any tribunal or forum to consider any unfair practice, whether by an employer or by a group of employees.
That would be going much too far and would remove the whole point of the Bill. That would serve the hon. Gentleman's purpose but not ours. The hon. Gentleman made one or two extremely important points. As he said, we shall probably have longer discussions on the specific industrial unfair practices later in the Bill, but he dealt with the general principle. However, he mentioned one which would obviously be an unfair industrial practice. This was the case in which a group of employees threatened direct action to coerce the employer to bring into union membership any employee in the factory who was not a member of a union. It is obvious that, if we did not make it an unfair industrial practice, the only way that that coercion would work would be if the employer gave the employee concerned the choice either of joining a union—and it might be a union which he did not particularly wish to join—or of leaving the factory, in some instances leaving the industry altogether. Therefore, it would be taking away the earlier part of the principle—that of freedom and security.

Mr. Dan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman mean freedom or licence?

Mr. Mawby: This is a most important question. I have always made the point that, where people enjoy rights and do not exercise the responsibilities that go with them, that freedom becomes licence. That is my usual definition. I do not think that any hon. Member can put his


hand on his heart and say that freedom has not become licence in certain specific cases. It is not general, never has been and probably never will be, but where there is one individual who loses his freedom and security by the action of people who have a right but do not exercise responsibility with it, then they are exercising licence and that freedom should be taken away from them.
In this case, we are trying to maintain a balance. In the past—even now—there have been threats of direct action to coerce an employer to say to an employee. "You join a union or else." Is that in the interests of the trade unions themselves? In effect, one is saying to the employer, "You are now the recruiting agent for the union. We need no longer approach young people coming into the industry to explain the benefits we have to offer if you join our union".

Mr. McBride: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point when he says that the employer becomes, in effect, the recruiting agent for the union. As there are two partners, management and men, is it not right that, where skill, status and qualification, to say nothing of the country's ultimate benefit, are involved, management in a closed shop situation should not be the sole recruiting agent for labour?

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman raises another important question. I freely acknowledge that in many factories managements will accept a full benefit card of certain craft unions as good evidence of skilled craftsmanship and as proof of apprenticeship, knowing very well that the union concerned still maintains high standards. But it does not follow that we should continue to allow a situation in which a group of people can say to the employer, "We do not care how high a man's standards of craftsmanship are or how good his bona fides are. Unless he joins our organisation, you must sack him". To say that is to take away one's own responsibility for at least "selling" the union to prospective new entrants.
Fundamentally, that way of proceeding is as much against the interests of present members of trade unions as it is against the interests of anyone else, for it means that one is on the slippery

slope, and unions will no longer have to keep themselves abreast of what work-people believe they ought to obtain through membership of the union of their choice.
The words of the subsection are quite specific, to give protection against
unfair industrial practices, whether on the part of employers or others".
Without those words, we might just as well not proceed with the Bill.

Mr. James Tinn: It seems to me that both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) are basing their arguments largely on two points: first, the importance of freedom for the individual to choose his own union, and second, the importance of unions having to justify themselves to prospective members and, indeed, to compete for members.
We hear a good deal from hon. Members opposite about the great virtues of competition. It would be a logical conclusion of their argument that the restrictions on free competition among unions for membership imposed under the T.U.C. agreement, which has prevented so much industrial strife in the past, should now be removed and that unions should be allowed to compete with one another inside the same undertaking, with, perhaps, two or three unions competing in, say, the docks or the car industry. Do hon. Members want to see competition in militancy for membership?

Mr. Mawby: No. The hon. Gentleman ignores other provisions of the Bill designed to go much further along the lines of the so-called Bridlington agreement than has ever been done hitherto, designed to take into account the historical basis of the union set-up in certain industries without at the same time doing anything to bring about greater proliferation. I believe that the Bridlington agreement has done a good deal not just to prevent the proliferation of unions but to reduce their number to a workable total. We are doing nothing to create the situation suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I have never proposed any such thing, and I never should.

Mr. Tinn: It seems that the position is that this Clause gives certain freedom to the unions which the hon. Member says will not be used because the Government


intend to emasculate the unions later in the Bill—

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman does not mean it but he is trying to put words into my mouth. There is nothing in the Bill which goes anywhere near trying to emasculate any union. What it seeks to do is to ensure that there will not be a proliferation of unions, that there will not be more than one union seeking to represent a certain number of employees. We know what difficulties there have been as a result of one union poaching from another. This is designed to prevent that happening, with the members of the unions having the last word by a ballot.
The hon. Member for Walton spokeofunfairdismissal, and we must make provision for that. In many cases it is not the employer who decides on a dismissal. Under present circumstances there can be a situation in which an employee is dismissed, possibly against the wishes of the employer, because he does not fit into the pattern, because he refuses to join the union. He is just as liable to be unfairly dismissed in this way as he is because the employer does not like the colour of his hair or the look of his face.
If we are to maintain freedom from unfair dismissal we cannot accept the Amendment and we must maintain the Bill as it is, balanced and designed to bring about greater freedom to everyone in whatever part of industry they serve.

Mr. Orme: I want to underline one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). We note with interest that the Government appear to be encouraging their back-benchers to participate at great length in today's debate. The Solicitor-General might draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to this lest he intends making any fractious remarks similar to those he made last night.
The Solicitor-General let something slip out when he was talking about Preambles no longer being in fashion and said that the principles of the Bill were embodied in Clause 1 because they would have to be used in a court of law later. In other words, the basic principles, and

no doubt these debates, will be taken into account when lawyers are deciding issues in industrial courts or elsewhere.

The Solicitor-General: On a matter of factual accuracy it was the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and noble Friend the former Lord Chancellor who was seeking to advance proposals whereby certainly preparatory documents and perhaps debates in Parliament could be taken into account by lawyers. Fortunately, lawyers are not required to have regard to what is said in this House. They look at the words of the Statute, so that the hon. Gentleman may be assured that neither his words nor mine will be taken into account.

Mr. Orme: Lawyers do not live in glass houses and there are a fair number of lawyers in the House of Commons. What would have been the preamble is now written into the Act in legal language, and this means that it will be taken into account in a court of law
In talking of unfair industrial practices, my hon. Friends have mentioned closed shops and 100 per cent. trade unionism. Hon. Members opposite have been defending the rights of minorities not to be members of trade unions but have had little to say about the rights of majorities. When have these minorities ever refused an increment obtained by a trade union? The next increment to be refused will be the first.
I have worked in a shop which was 100 per cent. trade union as opposed to the closed shop. A worker did not have to have a union card before he could start, but had to give an undertaking to join a trade union if he was suitable for the work. My experience was not that the unions bullied the management but that management often came to me as the senior shop steward and asked me to find out whether the man had the basic skill to do the job and had had apprenticeship training. The management consults the trade unions on these matters. I see that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is present. He will have had a great deal of experience from the management side. Where there are proper trade union agreements between management and employees and where there is 100 per cent. trade unionism or a closed shop in the majority of cases there are reasonable industrial relations. In a shop which is partially organised or


where the employer is trying to get people to work at below the normal rate and to work overtime at his behest, there is a large turnover of labour, bad workmanship and bad industrial relations.
I was in America about 12 months ago when the General Electric strike took place. This was an official dispute throughout all the G.E.C. factories in the United States, and it lasted for six months. It was supported by the trade union, which had a long industrial battle for negotiated agreements. Other unions such as the teamsters told me that they were prevented by law from taking secondary action to support the strike. If a lorry had been driven in it would have cost them tens of thousands of dollars a day in fines. My reading of that situation is that by making this an unfair industrial practice the Taft-Hartley Act prolonged that dispute over many months. If that were to take place in Britain, in our precarious economic position, we could not cope with it. We should see a shift to long official disputes which would damage British industry and the economy much more than do the disputes which now get such publicity.
At the end of the day, the only thing that will bring sanity to industrial relations is a strong trade union movement, with the employers recognising that the trade unions are here to stay and that they must negotiate on an equal basis with their workpeople so that in the 1970s workpeople will not be treated as they were in the 1920s and 1930s. Those days have gone for ever. What the trade unions object to in relation to these "unfair industrial practices" is that the actions which will become unlawful will be removed from industrial consultative discussions into a court of law. The Solicitor-General speaks of this in such nice tones that it sounds harmless, but the whole basis of industrial relations will be moved away from consultative discussions and normal day-to-day negotiations into courts of law. We cannot let the philosophy outlined in Clause 1 stand as it is without raising objection. It is important that Members on this side of the Committee should put their point of view.

Mr. McBride: Does my hon. Friend contend that in pursuing the legal definition of "unfair industrial practices" it is

the Government's intention to encase the trade union movement in a cocoon of case law?

Mr. Orme: This is the obvious conclusion. We all know that Mr. George Meaney, a prominent and moderate trade union leader, has said that at the end of the day there will be more case law here than in the United States or in any other industrial nation in the world. We will move in this country from free collective bargaining to a type of law-court democracy.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend knows that he has a reputation as a Left-winger and always speaks for himself or for the Left-wing trade union movement. Does he know of any trade union to the right, at the left, or in the centre as a moderate, which supports this Bill? To put it the other way, can he tell the House how many trade unions and their leaders to the right, to the left or in the centre are against the Bill?

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: And against the Amendment.

Mr. Orme: I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and also the point put by the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner). I made the point to the Secretary of State last night that the trade union movement right across the board, irrespective of its point of view, was completely opposed to this Bill. The membership is also opposed to it.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Orme: Hon. Members opposite will see that by the time we have spent several weeks or months of debate in this Committee, a more articulate and educated trade union movement will exist in this country which understands more about this issue than it has ever done before. My experience and that of many of my hon. Friends is of attending packed meetings on this issue, probably the best attended meetings they have seen for years. They are being attended not by the activists, but by the rank and file who want to know the facts about the Bill and want to oppose it. The Solicitor-General might feel at the moment that he is pushing along cosily, but the situation will change in the future.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair.]

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: In the matter of industrial relations, nothing so illustrates the point that we are prisoners of our past than the present debate. I sympathise with the viewpoint expressed by so many trade unionists on this side of the House with regard to the provision in the Bill relating to unfair industrial practices. The view of the trade unionist is coloured by his experience and by his past. What is regarded by a person taking a detached view as an unfair industrial practice may not appear to be unfair to a man who has struggled for years to gain recognition and improvement of conditions on the shop floor. I am ready to concede that point.
In my experience, union shops are very much better run on average than nonunion shops; the conditions are much better. It is not an invariable rule since I have known exceptions to it, but it is generally conceded that where there is 100 per cent. union membership, or a closed shop, the shop is well run and industrial relations are good.
Nevertheless, having conceded that, I believe that there are such things as unfair industrial practices. The people who impose them do not recognise that they are unfair because, as I say, they are coloured in their viewpoint. Over the years I have had to appear for and against trade unions and have been involved in situations in which, undoubtedly, anybody taking a detached view would have said that an unfair industrial practice existed. But that did not prevent genuine, honest people being unable to appreciate that such a practice, which was thought to be in the interests of the union or indeed of the employer, was unfair.

Mr. Dan Jones: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give it as his legal opinion that in future it will be unfair for work people or shop stewards to make a legitimate approach to a non-unionist and to ask him to join the trade union?

Mr. Hooson: I would have thought not. When the Bill becomes law it will be interpreted according to the words used in the Clauses. If the words are not capable of ready interpretation, the

lawyers or the judges interpreting them will look at the first Section, as it will become, "General principles."
In an exchange between the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) reference was made to Germany. The hon. Member for Bedwellty said that in West Germany trade union membership is 25 to 30 per cent. The hon. Member for Barry said that he was in favour of 100 per cent. trade unionism. It is an interesting reflection how much this country is a prisoner of its past that, with the state of trade unionism in Germany, the average German industrial worker is earning more than his opposite number here.
There are many reasons for this. One is that, because their past was shattered by the last war, the Germans had a constitutional works law introduced in 1952. They created a system of industrial relations on a different basis, with particular reference to plant bargaining and good conditions at the plant and works. This has benefited Germany all round. Nobody in this country can put his hand on his heart, having examined conditions in both countries, and say that our industrial relations over the last decade have begun to approach those of West Germany so far as the achievement of productivity and happy relations are concerned.
I put this as an illustration of the point that the debate is coloured by the experience of people in trade unions and by the anti-trade unionism attitude taken by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Experience shows that shops run in happy co-operation between management and trade unions are normally well-run. That is to be encouraged.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Hooson: I will give way in a few moments. I say that there are certain unfair industrial practices which trade unionists themselves can recognise as such and from which the individual must be protected.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that, with his intimate knowledge of industrial relations in West Germany, the hon. and learned Gentleman will want to record that much of the reason for the successful


pattern of well-organised industrial relations in the Federal Republic is due largely to the fact that it was designed by British trade unionists for German trade unionists.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman must not flatter me. I do not have intimate knowledge of German industrial affairs. I have some knowledge from reading and inquiry about them. I do not have intimate knowledge, but I understand that they had advisers from the British trade union movement, who must have given very good advice because the system has been very successful.
I come back to the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I understand it, but I do not think that it will bear examination. I think that there has to be a residual power in the courts to which the individual can occasionally make his application because unfair industrial practices exist. My view is that, in a democracy, any individual is entitled to recourse eventually to some element outside the union or outside his employment to get the necessary redress—that is, to the courts. Therefore, I think that the words should remain in the Clause.

Mr. Thomas Swain: I enter the debate briefly to deal with the Amendment and its possible effect on the pre-entry closed shop practised in the coalmining industry—[Interruption.] If the Liberal Party conference could be delayed until June, so that I can be heard, no doubt I shall be able to carry on.
The mining industry is somewhat unique, and over the years there has been more malpractice in the industry than in any other in Great Britain. I say that, not with pride, but as a matter of fact. In 1926—and I must go back to that year without harking on the past and asking my dad—we came out on strike and all the other trade unions joined us. I was out for 32 weeks. I am not proud of that, but along with my dad and many others I was out for that length of time, and when we eventually applied for our jobs we were told—and I was only 15 at the time—that there were enough of our sort employed at the pit and under no circumstances would be allowed to work there. That system operated in the mining industry until 1942, when the country

realised the value of the mining community and the value of the coal that was being produced from our pits.
Let us look at the function of the trade union in my industry. To do this I have again to go back historically, but this time only to 1947. The wisest thing that my trade union and the National Coal Board did in the initial stages was to agree that only certain trade unions should represent the men, both the professional men and the workers in the industry. There was an amalgamation of unions so that that could come about. There was an amalgamation between C.O.S.A., which was a strong union in its section of professionalism, and the N.U.M. which was sensibly formed in 1944. They set up a closed shop in 1944, and the N.C.B. agreed to meet the N.U.M. on behalf of the workmen, B.A.C.A.M. on behalf of the management, and N.A.C.O.D.S. on behalf of the officials.
That was a wise thing to do, because from that moment all malpractices in the industry began to diminish. This was because we were meeting new employers with a fresh outlook. We were meeting on a different scale. We were having joint consultations, which can happen only if there is a 100 per cent. closed shop in an industry. One can have consultation at its best only when there is 100 per cent. trade union membership and the various sections, represented by different unions, are recognised by the employers.
The mining industry has safety regulations which have to be obeyed by all members in the industry. These regulations could not be operated with anything less than 100 per cent. trade union membership. I say that because of my 25 years' experience as a pit negotiator, and three years' experience as an area negotiator as the vice-president of my union.
If the Clause goes through in its present form my union, which represents men in an industry which is unique by comparison with other industries of a more dispersed nature, could deteriorate very rapidly, indeed. My old pit is the biggest in the Midlands, and in 1970 it produced 1¾ million tons of coal. If one man of the 2,900 employees at that pit were not a member of my trade union he could not expect, and would not get, representation by my union.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Industrial Relations Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. John Davies.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Swain: I regret that interruption, one which we could well do without. I say that in all sincerity because there is far too much time-wasting with pomp and ceremony in this establishment and too little work as a consequence.
If the Government have the wisdom to accept the Amendment, we can have happy industrial relations not only in the mining industry but in all our basic industries. This will further enhance the good relations that in most cases exist between trade unionists and good employers. I emphasise "good employers", of whom there are many in this country. They recognise the benefit of conducting negotiations with trade unions.
There are, however, a lot of bad employers, too, and I suggest, from the speeches made today and yesterday by backbenchers opposite, that hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to represent a lot of bad employers. [Interruption.] I trust that if the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has something to say he will get to his feet and say it, rather than mutter to himself whenever he pops in to pay us a visit like a popcorn out of a bag.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was muttering words of encouragement to the hon. Gentleman. I was so enthralled by his speech.

Mr. Swain: I am interested to hear that, but it is probably because the hon. Member's majority was increased at the last election.
Although the law does not permit pre-entry closed shop conditions, these exist in many establishments and, where they exist, productivity, wage levels, efficiency, safety standards and every other facet of industry is far better than where we have a haphazard type of organisation.
I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that a few weeks ago we had a ballot in my industry for a strike, the first ballot since 1926. We had an 83 per cent. poll. On the day of the ballot there was 15·2 per cent. absenteeism throughout the industry. Thus, of the people who attended work, we had a 99·1 per cent. ballot. My members in the National Union of Mineworkers took part in a democratic vote on an industrial issue which was completely lawful and strictly according to the laws of the land and the rules which are registered by my trade union. Unfortunately for a lot of people, the ballot did not go the way we expected. Fifty-five per cent. voted against the strike and 45 per cent. voted for it.
I would remind the Committee that if the Bill had been in operation as an Act of Parliament, we would now have been in the midst of the biggest industrial struggle we have had since 1926. That in itself proves the inadvisability of bringing in a Bill of this character.
The Amendment was moved with the sole and very good intention of improving the Bill [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peterborough is in class again. The Amendment was moved in good faith, with one intention and one alone. It was moved not with the intention, which the hon. Member so strangely applies in his mind, of wrecking the Bill; it was intended to improve the Bill. By God, if ever a Bill needed improvement it is this one. I should have objected to it from Title to the last full stop without attempting to amend it. It stinks. It is rotten. It is almost as bad in its philosophy as the people who have introduced it, and that is almost going to the impossible—that is giving credit to the Bill.
I know that nobody on the Front Bench ever listens to back-bench speeches, but it would be courteous if they would be quiet. To expect some courtesy from the Front Bench spokesmen is expecting a lot. They seem to be having a conference between themselves all the time, so whatever we say on the back benches they do


not hear. People who have spent a lifetime in the trade union movement and who can argue from their own vast experience of the members of their trade union are not listened to by the Front Bench. They take more notice of the C.B.I. than they do of the back-benchers on either side of the House.
I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I am certain that the Bill will be better for it.

Mr. Tomney: This Bill has at last given us an idea of the complexities which industry and the trade unions will face. Without the advantage of a Preamble and without the double advantage of knowing what the code of industrial practice is to be, the difficulties that we are running into are becoming obvious.
The reasoning behind the Bill is based on a lot of United States practice which differs from that in British industry in that most American unionism is based on industrial unionism, with each union negotiating its own contract for a specified period of time and renegotiating it at the end of that time. The practice makes it comparatively easy in American law to decide issues. But, even there, one find the most involved legalistic wrangles before new contracts can be agreed.
The paragraph which we are discussing will lead to all kinds of complications. However, until we know what the code of industrial practice is to be, it is impossible to offer any reasoned judgment on some of the difficulties which may arise.
In most British factories of any size, there are a number of different unions competing for the same membership. Each union appoints stewards who are responsible to their regional offices. There is a multiplicity of wage rates. In the factories of the General Electric Company with which I was concerned, there were no fewer than 1,024 wage rates and 29 rate fixers. Those were the kinds of difficulty with which one had to tangle day by day.
Under the Bill and the proposed code, as it is carried through to the Registrar of Trade Unions and to the agency shop, it is possible to envisage a situation in which those who do the negotiation will

be faced with almost implacable difficulties.
Let us consider for a moment a militant section of craft workers in a union in one factory which hitherto has forced the pace with regard to the conduct of the union in that factory. Suppose that as a result of a secret ballot, the moderates take charge of the negotiating procedure. What is to happen to the militant members of the union if they are denied the representation to which they think that they are entitled and which has special knowledge of their craft that is not possessed by anyone else? No code of practice containing general statements of law can possibly cater for this kind of objection.
In different departments in one factory where the workers are represented by the same union, various rates of pay will apply. Operatives receiving different rates of pay are making the same union contribution. We already look for equality of rates. But, when this law comes into force, there will be a greater demand for equality of rates between different departments. Industry and commerce does not work like that. Different rates are bound to apply. However, the situation will arise where workers on productive employment are registered under a contract and, if the company proposes to transfer a man from one department to another under normal company practice, he will refuse to go. Will that constitute unfair industrial practice, and will it lead to his dismissal?
That is the kind of case in which the law will become involved. Up until now there will have been discussions between the joint shop committee and the regional officers of the union. Any difficulties will have been ironed out, and a general code will have been accepted. Once it is put into a law of this kind, enormous difficulty will be encountered. I warn hon. Members that we had better watch what we are doing.
It is one thing to generalise on certain principles which are applicable to the legal profession. It is another to interpret them. We shall face a situation in which every time that a new contract of employment is to be negotiated, even at workshop level, a lawyer will have to be


involved. That is but one reason why I am thankful to be no longer a leading convenor in a large works.
10.15 p.m.
Where this has spread throughout England, and differential rates apply from district to district, the matter becomes more complex. I was involved in negotiations with G.E.C. at Hammersmith, Brook Green, Brighton, Team Valley, Shaw, East Lancashire and elsewhere, and had to keep a watching brief over

them all to maintain equality of rates between members of the same union, all of them knowing from the annual conference exactly what rates applied. It was impossible to have a London, Manchester or Newcastle weighting built into the wage rates.
Those are only a few of the matters that occur to me as I think about the problems of the Bill. We on the union side shall have to have a close look at how the code of practice will apply and operate.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), primarily because I think that many hon. Members opposit still do not understand what they are trying to do. We should get down to cases.
It is not too much to say, summarising the two days' debate, that all day yesterday the Minister responsible for industrial relations tried to explain the Bill, and failed because he did not realise the legal implications of what he said, and today the Solicitor-General tried to explain the principles of the Bill and failed because he has no knowledge of industrial relations. This may be a fair reflection of what will happen in the country if the Bill ever becomes law, but it does not stop them from trying to push the Bill through.
One of the
unfair industrial practices
concerned is the secondary action, namely, that if a trade union induces someone to break his contract when that person is not directly involved in the dispute it is an unfair practice and certain legal consequences could well flow from it. This results from what we can only describe as cerebration in the antiseptic atmosphere of Whitehall by the Secretary of State for Employment. We must examine what effect this will have on the ground.
I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back briefly to the autumn, when there was an extensive official strike, the first for many years, in the local authority world. In so far as strikes can be popular either with those taking part in them or with the public generally, that was a popular strike. It was generally conceded that the men had a very fair case, and there was considerable public support.
One of the reasons why the strike was so important was that although about 750,000 people were in dispute with their employers up and down the country the trade union sought to minimise the damage it inflicted on the public by pulling out only those sections of the labour force which had a direct impact on the settlement of the dispute. At the height of the industrial action about which I am

talking, of the 750,000 people concerned only about 85,000 were out on strike.
In one part of the country the dustmen were out on strike on union instructions and the road workers were still working. Into this situation the local authority inserted a very unfortunate act. They had contractors' lorries bringing tar to the road workers, and when the tar had been emptied the lorries went, on the local authority's instructions, into the centres of the town to pick up the rubbish and take it to the rubbish dump. This was undermining the whole stand that the dustmen were taking on behalf of their colleagues, so the road men blacked the contractors' lorries. That was inducing the contractors to break their contract with the local authority. The result was that the lorries were not unloaded at the work site, rubbish could not be put in them, and the strength of the strike was maintained.
We can draw several lessons from this. If the Act applied, what the road men did would be regarded as an unfair industrial practice. It would not be an unfair industrial practice that would protect the freedom and security of the workers involved. On the contrary, it would do very much the opposite; it would completely undermine their striking position and damage those workers and not protect them. That is one of the reasons why I support the Amendment.
Second, the entire strike position of the union in that part of the country would be undermined.
Third, the Government should bear very much in mind that there is a solution to the problem if the Bill becomes law. In addition to pulling the dustmen out on strike, the union could have extended the strike and brought out the road men. Is that the sort of thing the Government want to happen? Do they want to cerebrate in the higher reaches of Whitehall to produce a statement of principle independent of any particular facts, to apply it by law, put it into operation and produce a practical situation on the ground in which it is better for trade unions to extend strikes, making them as wide as possible, rather than restricting them in the interests of not inflicting the maximum damage on the public?
That is the sort of problem to which the Government should be turning their


minds, but they are not. They are committed to a tremendously theoretical approach to the problem of industrial relations. If they are not careful, it will do the country more harm than good.

The Solicitor-General: This has been a wide-ranging debate. A number of Labour Members have raised detailed examples of particular unfair industrial practices which are spelt out in detail later in the Bill. The Committee will forgive me if I do not deal with them all, since they are proper for further discussion later.
I acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) have said, the words now sought to be deleted are at the foundation of an important part of the Bill. They categorise in a general sense a number of the unfair industrial practices, and are the foundation for improved consultation, not for an extended application of law; they identify some of the matters which on behalf of the community Parliament rightly wishes to identify as unfair. This was the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
It is unarguable at this point in time that, in the course of collective bargaining and the conduct of industrial relations, both sides—if we must acknowledge the two sides to these negotiations—from time to time go beyond that which is reasonable and necessary in the presentation of their case. It is to that end that the Bill contains unfair industrial practices, which we shall later examine in detail. It is the whole concept of identifying unfairness, unacceptable activities, from the point of view of the community and of the people concerned in the industry.
I can understand some hon. Members opposite rejecting root and branch the idea that one can identify anything in this way. I find more difficulty in understanding those right hon. and hon. Members opposite who reject this concept when, in their own proposals, canvassed in general or in detail, they themselves identified activities by both sides of industry which should be categorised as inimical to the community.
I take the trade union side first. They categorised activities by unions hostile and unduly hostile to their members and prospective members in respect of which remedies were being proposed in "In Place of Strife", and activities by unions hostile to the interests of the community when using coercive action to secure recognition to the point where the interests of the community were being destroyed. These are matters which both sides of the Committee, at various times at least, have regarded as unfair and in respect of which remedies ought to be provided.
Similarly, at the other end of the scale, there were categorised discriminatory action by employers against union members such as unfair action in dismissing people without good grounds.
Surely we are on common ground that any attempt to introduce, in this Bill and in the Labour Government's Bill before the election, remedies for legitimate grievances that will enable people to consult and negotiate against the background of fair guidelines at least involves the Committee in identifying certain matters which are unfair, and that is what we are seeking to do. What we seek to do, having identified these matters which are unfair, is wherever possible to provide alternative remedies for the resolution of legitimate complaints within a sensible foundation of principle, providing a clear framework of law against which people can conduct industrial relations themselves.

Mr. Dan Jones: A lot of emphasis has been placed upon the word "intimidation" of a man or a woman to join a trade union. The hon. and learned Gentleman now repeats that charge. Has any research been done to show how much of that practice has resulted in any kind of industrial strife?

The Solicitor-General: In an interjection by the hon. Gentleman earlier, his question was, "Is it or is it not unfair for a union organizer to ask someone to join a union, whether in an agency shop or a non-union shop?" The point is relevant to the one he has just put to me. The answer is that it is not unfair. Indeed, it is visualized as being fair and proper within the Bill that there should be an agency shop agreement whereby


the employer undertakes to use his best efforts to persuade workpeople coming into the work place to join the union. Not only the trade union official is free to persuade. The point at which this would become unfair is if someone, having been approached and invited to join the union, and having had the benefits of membership explained to him, declines the invitation. It would be unfair for coercive action to be used against the employer in such a case to secure that employee's dismissal because he had not responded to the invitation.

Mr. Dan Jones: That is not the answer to my question. How much research has been done in order to justify the hon. and learned Gentleman in making that claim? I think that the answer is, "None".

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has surely read, as we have all read, correspondence coming to hon. Members and cases reported in the newspapers, not to be regarded as of general or universal application, but certainly situations in which individuals have been over-pressured and who believe themselves to have been threatened and intimidated in order to secure their membership of a trade union or else be deprived of their occupation. Hon. Members have all come across examples of cases of that kind. I am not suggesting that they are the generality but they are sufficiently frequent for this kind of protection to be introduced.

Mr. Dan Jones: They are exceptional.

The Solicitor-General: That may be so, but it does not destroy the validity of my case. I remind the Committee of the case made by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in "In Place of Strife", when she proposed the establishment of an industrial board to provide remedies in the case of people wrongly excluded or expelled from a union. She made the point in these terms:
This does not imply that there is any reason to suspect frequent injustice, any more than the creation of the Parliamentary Commissioner implies that maladministration is common in Government Departments. But it is right and healthy in a democracy that any powerful body should be subject to outside scrutiny where abuse of its power can most harm the individual.

That is the foundation of the identification of unfair industrial practices in that area. It is only one illustration of the areas in which unfair practices are being identified.
I put it to the Committee that it is not possible to challenge that central proposition once one accepts the idea of providing remedies for unfair activity on either side of industry.
10.30 p.m.
Several hon. Members returned to the suggestion that this concept of unfair industrial practices is of American origin and is, therefore, of wholly trans-Atlantic application. It is true, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out, that the American legislation talks in terms of unfair labour practices. It is not alone in that. Many countries have identified in a variety of ways practices in the conduct of industrial relations on both sides which—

Mr. Orme: They copied the Americans.

The Solicitor-General: Not necessarily. In many countries, the progress has been going parallel to that which has taken place in North America. Different formulations have been adopted, and the same words have not been used, but in many countries the idea of saying that this, that or the other action is unfair or is unacceptable is generally accepted. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says that other countries have copied the Americans. That is right in some instances. In the Commonwealth, the Australian law has been in existence long enough to have commended itself to Sidney Webb 50 or 60 years ago. Many countries have adopted that sort of concept because they have found such an approach of value in helping to identify unfairnesses.
With respect, to say that my old friend Professor Wedderburn's denunciation of the American aspects of this proposal is to be taken as gospel foundation for not accepting it is to disregard Professor Wedderburn's skill as a committed political advocate as much as it is to pay respect to his skill as an academic student of this branch of the law. He is a committed political advocate in these matters, and one should not be too much


persuaded by that. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Solicitor-General is a committed political advocate, too".] Certainly. That is what this Committee is about. But hon. Members will not expect me to fall about and lie down overwhelmed by the force of reason at the mention of the name of Professor Wedderburn, much as I respect him.
I move now from the general proposition that all analyses of this kind of problem have identified areas in respect of which industrial action on either side can be unfair to some of the more detailed points which hon. Members opposite have made. The foundation of those points as put by the hon. Member for Walton was that the whole idea of unfair industrial practices destroys things which are fundamental to legitimate trade union activities. If that were so, there might be more substance in the case which he put. In fact, there is here no threat to anything fundamental to legitimate trade union activities.
The hon. Gentleman suggested, for example, that the closed shop, in contrast to the agency shop, was fundamental to legitimate trade union activities. We cannot accept that. We accept that it is fundamental to trade union activities that trade unionists should be free to persuade as many workers as they can in any industry or section of industry of the benefits of joining, and free, indeed, to persuade within the context of the agency shop; but we cannot accept that it should go so far as to enable a union, even taking into account the freedom of the other members in that workplace, to secure the dismissal or non-employment of a man who, for good reasons, does not wish to belong to the union but who is prepared, at the wish of the majority of his colleagues, to pay the cost of being represented by the union.

Mr. Swain: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that where there is 100 per cent. trade unionism in a shop, mine, factory or whatever, the efficiency is in every way better than where there is haphazard organisation? Would he also accept that if there is infiltration of non-unionism through this Bill the efficiency of the 100 per cent. union establishment will inevitably deteriorate?

The Solicitor-General: I have listened with much interest and sympathy to the speech made by the hon. Member, developing this case with reference to his long experience in the coal industry. I was slightly hurt at his suggestion that we were treating him with disdain by discussing something. I apologise if I appeared not to be listening but we were paying attention to what he was saying.

Mr. Swain: All lawyers can talk and listen at the same time.

The Solicitor-General: Maybe, but a number of other hon. Members can too. I fancy that it is part of the mythology of this place that lawyers can do so. The point he makes is that the structure of unionism in the coal industry, divided into three unions, has helped to spread stability in bargaining conditions in the industry. There is no gainsaying that. It is one of the incidental objectives of the recognition remedies recommended here, as it was in "In Place of Strife", to help produce better integrated situations.
I pay tribute to the greater unity and harmony achieved by the three-union structure in the coal industry. We do not believe that that necessarily requires that total commitment, the obligation of everyone employed in the industry to be a member of one or other of these unions. It need not go that far to secure the orderliness and prosperity that can be achieved by good bargaining.
To take the examples quoted by hon. Members, the achievement of the N.U.M. in balancing, in its bargaining with the Coal Board, the diversified interests of the many categories whom it represents, has been a substantial one. It has had to balance their interests and that was one of the problems. In the North American automobile industry the Union of Automobile Workers has had to undertake, and had undertaken, the same task, as a single union, throughout the industry, doing the balancing act more effectively for more workers and not operating upon the basis of the closed shop but in essence upon an agency shop principle, achieving good results and conditions for its members and long-term stability within the industry. We do not accept that to fulfil the legitimate objects of trade unionism in the sense the closed shop is necessary.
Hon. Members mentioned the difficulties of getting an agency shop on a building site and I acknowledge that point. That is why there is special reference to the construction industry at the end of Clause 8. It will be seen, in Clause 15, that the changing population of workers on a growing site would enable a subsequent application for an agency shop ballot to be held, even if an adverse vote had been recorded on the first occasion. [Interruption.] An application can be made within two years when the people covered by the application are of a different or larger category than was covered by the original application. I do not want to go into more detail save to say that we are aware of the point.
The subject of the secondary, or sympathy strike, was raised by several hon. Members. The examples of the Post Office strike and the local government workers' strike were given. If hon. Members look at the Clause dealing with that they will find that it is narrowly defined, as it ought to be, and that any employer against whom secondary action is taken, who has taken supporting action in respect of any other party in the dispute can be struck against. So with the example given of the local government workers. If the haulage contractors—if I understood the example correctly—were supporting the local authorities by seeking to do their work for them, they would be legitimate targets of secondary action.
Similarly in the example given by another hon. Member apropos of the Post Office situation. Any employer who gives support by seeking to do on behalf of the Post Office Corporation work which it would be doing would be supporting the primary employer, and, again, secondary action could be taken, because we recognise, perhaps to an extent which has not been appreciated, that supporting action, the use of borrowed strength, within reasonable limits, is a legitimate aspect of trade union activity. Some hon. Members may feel that we go too far in recognising that.
Where, however, we get off the bus is in saying that, in that situation, or in the situation of industrial action directed against individual workers or union members, it is possible for such action to go too far; it is possible for secondary, sympathetic, action to be directed against

an employer, a customer, or another party, who is wholly innocent, and unconnected with the original dispute; and it is right to identify that secondary strike action as unreasonable, unfair, going beyond what is required by legitimate union activity.

Mr. Orme: What about the employer, then, who, to break a strike, deliberately sends his work out to a sub-contractor, when there is an official dispute in the employer's factory? That is secondary action by an employer.

The Solicitor-General: Yes. I do not want to deal with all the examples which have been given; we shall come to them when we come to Clause 87, but the same provisions apply to sympathetic lock-outs, and I hope that the Committee will recognise that they are reasonable, carefully constructed, and that exactly the same basic question arises. I come back to the point with which I began, that the foundation of this Clause and of this Bill is that there is a legitimate, well-justified place for trade union activities.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On licence.

The Solicitor-General: Not on licence. That is another, separate point. Equally validly it is possible to identify activities which go too far, and it is the function of the House, and of this Committee, a function which the Government have attempted to discharge, to recognise that there are innocent individuals, innocent firms, innocent members of the community, who can be unduly harmed if we do not identify certain industrial actions which are unfair. That is at the heart of this legislation, and it is for that reason that I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The Solicitor-General's speech shows how impossible is the situation in which the Committee has been in dealing with this Clause, because what we have been trying to do is to examine the whole Bill in a couple of days' debate. I am not objecting to the Solicitor-General's reply because he was, with perfect courtesy to the Committee, trying to deal with a number of detailed points, but his reply showed how all that we have been able to do, in dealing with this Clause, is to scratch at the surface of the fundamental


issues which, as he himself quite rightly said, we shall debate in detail later in the Bill.
Yet it is impossible for us on this side, and, indeed for hon. Members opposite, to ignore this Clause, because of the peculiar construction of the Bill. Indeed, it is almost unprecedented in having this omnibus, general purposes Clause at the beginning. It is a kind of moral statement of attitudes, very unusual in legislation, and yet not something which we can just dismiss as being irrelevant, as various hon. Members tried to suggest yesterday, because we have this quasi-judicial link between the general principles and the sanctions in the Bill. This is why we have had to challenge every one of these general principles and to probe and examine them to see exactly what are their implications. It is really an extraordinary situation to have far-reaching general principles set out and to be told that, by law, under the Bill, they must be guiding principles to determine the performance of the Secretary of State, the Commission on Industrial Relations, the courts and the tribunals. We were told in "Fair Deal at Work" that this would be the rôle of the code of industrial practice that was to be based on these general principles. We were told in "Fair Deal at Work" that a code of practice would lay down basic standards and guidelines by which the methods and behaviour of management, employees and trade unions could be assessed by administrators and courts of law given powers under the Bill.
10.45 p.m.
This is about the most important Clause in the Bill because it is so comprehensive. In view of the nature of the Clause it is remarkable that in a day and a half of debate we should have got so far with it. It is a bad sign for the future work of the Committee that the Secretary of State for Employment should say yesterday that in moving an Amendment to examine the meaning of a vital word in one of these principles we were "nit-picking." That is an indication of the arrogance of the Government's approach which the Solicitor-General has been wise to avoid. Hon. Members opposite today have shown just as much interest in examining these principles, and have

taken even more parliamentary time in doing so, than we have. So I hope that there will be no more talk of a nit-picking filibuster when we look at something which, as the Solicitor-General says, goes to the very foundations of the Bill.
For the first time we have got the Solicitor-General to answer questions in detail and we want to encourage him in these good works. Because of the comprehensiveness of Clause 1 the Solicitor-General was compelled to take one or two illustrations of what he meant by these far-reaching principles.
In dealing with Clause (1)(d) we are concerned with the principle of freedom and security for workers. We are not dealing with collective bargaining or with procedural agreements and whether they should be legally enforceable, we are dealing with workers' rights, and we have been examining just what this concept of unfair practices means. It is only because of the breadth of the debate that it has been possible for the Solicitor-General to suggest that an examination of "In Place of Strife" and the need for an independent review body to act as a court of appeal for a union member against the operation of his union rules, as advocated by Donovan, had anything in common with the "unfair industrial practices" which the Government are planning in the name of the so-called freedom and security of the worker.
The sort of unfair industrial practice which the Solicitor-General should talk about in this context is the unfair practice which would challenge the ideological concept of the Conservative Party that a man has an equal and unqualified right not to belong to a trade union as he has to belong to one. The unfair industrial practice we are talking about here is the Government's determination to make it impossible in future for a trade unionist to say "I will not work with a non-unionist". It is the sort of unfair industrial practice which will ring round with new hazards the concept of borrowed strength, which is what the sympathetic strike often means.
These are the basic traditional concepts of trade unionism that are being challenged by the Government in this Bill. It is no good hon. Members opposite denying this, because this is the great


divide that is between us on this Amendment. We know the sort of unfair industrial practices hon. Gentlemen opposite want to create.
We accept, as the Solicitor General said, that people engaged in trade unions, as in any other activity, will go beyond what is reasonable from time to time. There is not a group or organisation—this applies even to a club like that composed by hon. Members in this House—in which this could not be said to be true of its members. But this is no justification for this apparatus of law and the new sanctions proposed by the Government through their concept of unfair industrial practices. In particular, it is no justification whatever to undermine, as does the Bill, the fundamental rights won by trade unionists through the development of democratic organisation and co-operation.
The great divide between us is in our attitude to trade unionism, which is entirely different from that in the Conservative Party. We believe that collective bargaining is an essential part of democratic expression and, as Donovan said, one cannot have collective bargaining without the organisation of workers on which it depends. We believe that good industrial practice means encouraging, stimulating and promoting the organisa-

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[10.55 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Albu, Austen
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ellis, Tom


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
English, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, Fred


Ashley, Jack
Concannon, J. D.
Faulds, Andrew


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Barnes, Michael
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Barnett, Joel
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Baxter, William
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Foley, Maurice


Beaney, Alan
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Foot, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dalyell, Tam
Ford, Ben


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davidson, Arthur
Forrester, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Freeson, Reginald


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Garrett, W. E.


Booth, Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Deakins, Eric
Ginsburg, David


Bradley, Tom
Delargy, H. J.
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Doig, Peter
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dormand, J. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Buchan, Norman
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Driberg, Tom
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dunn, James A.
Harper, Joseph


Cant, R. B.
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Edelman, Maurice
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

of workers and that it is this on which collective bargaining depends.

We cannot accept that there is an equal right in an industrial relations context to say, "You can contract out of this democratic organisation which has been developed over the years." This is to deny the whole of the history of trade unionism and the fundamental needs of society. We believe that what we should be doing in society today is to encourage people to organise themselves for collective action, to express themselves through it, and to work for their own needs and to defend them.

Everybody knows that the individual is powerless to influence his environment in the context of modern industry. In entitling him to contract out all one is doing is merely weakening other people's freedom of expression. We say that people should positively be encouraged to join a union and that that union should encourage its members to participate democratically and fully in the control of that union. This is our way forward, it is entirely different from that of hon. Members opposite, and I ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 247. Noes 281.

Heffer, Eric S.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hilton, W. S.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Horam, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roper, John


Huckfield, Leslie
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Meacher, Michael
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hunter, Adam
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mendelson, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Janner, Greville
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Sillars, James


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silverman, Julius


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Small, William


John, Brynmor
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Murray, Ronald King
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Malley, Brian
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oram, Bert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kaufman, Gerald
Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley
Taverne, Dick


Kerr, Russell
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Kinnock, Neil
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lambie, David
Padley, Walter
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lamond, James
Paget, R. T.
Tinn, James


Latham, Arthur
Palmer, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Lawson, George
Pannell Rt. Hn. Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Varley, Eric G.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wainwright, Edwin


Leonard, Dick
Pavitt, Laurie
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walker Harold (Doncaster)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pendry, Tom
Wallace, George


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pentland, Norman
Watkins, David



Perry, Ernest G.
Weitzman David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wellbeloved, James


Lomas, Kenneth
Prescott, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McBride, Neil
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McCann, John
Rankin, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McCartney, Hugh
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Mackenzie, Gregor
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackie, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. William Hamling and


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. John Golding.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bryan, Paul
Eden, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buck, Antony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Astor, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Burden, F. A.
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Farr, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fell, Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Carlisle, Mark
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Fidler, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Chapman, Sydney
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Churchill, W. S.
Fortescue, Tim


Benyon, W.
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Foster, Sir John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cockeram, Eric
Fowler, Norman


Biffen, John
Coombs, Derek
Fox, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Blaker, Peter
Cordle, John
Fry, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Cormack, Patrick
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Boscawen, Robert
Critchley, Julian



Bossom, Sir Clive
Curran, Charles
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bowden, Andrew
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Braine, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhart, Philip


Bray, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Goodhew, Victor


Brewis, John
Dean, Paul
Gorst, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gower, Raymond


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Drayson, G. B.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)







Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Rost, Peter


Grylls, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Royle, Anthony


Gummer, Selwyn
Madel, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maginnis, John E.
Scott, Nicholas


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marten, Neil
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Simeons, Charles


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Soref, Harold


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Speed, Keith


Havers, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdoenshire, W.)
Sproat, Iain


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hicks, Robert
Molyneaux, James
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Higgins, Terence L.
Money, Ernie
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hiley, Joseph
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stokes, John


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sutcliffe, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tapsell, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornby, Richard
Mudd, David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)



Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Temple, John M.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hunt, John
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tilney, John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jessel, Toby
Osborn, John
Trew, Peter


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Owen, Idris (Strockport, N.)
Tugendhar, Christopher


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pardoe, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Wall, Patrick


Kilfedder, James
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Ward, Dame Irene


Kimball, Marcus
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Warren, Kenneth


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pounder, Rafton
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kinsey, J. R.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kirk, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wiggin, Jerry


Knox, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wilkinson, John


Lane, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Longden, Gilbert
Redmond, Robert
Worsley, Marcus


Loveridge, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Younger, Hn. George


MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.



McCrindle, R. A.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McLaren, Martin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Hector Munro and


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Walter Clegg.


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 3, at end insert:
(e) the principle of effective consultation in decisions affecting industry with those concerned at each level, and with full disclosure of relevant information so far as reasonably practicable'.
I understand, however, that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment were to be discussed with Amendment No. 351. If the mover of Amendment No. 24 is agreeable and

the Committee agree, I suggest that we now call Amendment No. 351 and take with it Amendment No. 24.

Mr. Peter Archer: If that meets the wishes of the Committee, I shall be quite happy to deal with the matter in that way. If I may speak subsequently on Amendment No. 24, I shall then suggest a course of action.

The Deputy Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 351, in page 2, line 3, at end insert:
'and
(e) the principle of workers' participation in management'.
This is another Amendment which calls for an extension of industrial democracy and represents yet another difference in view between the two sides of the Committee. There is the view of the Government, on the one hand, that the undoubted problems of industrial strife can be dealt with by regulation, penalty and damages and by some of the provisions of the Bill which go back to before 1906. Alternatively, there is the view, expressed in the Amendment, that it is possible to harness constructively the vigour and the involvement of workers' representatives, leading beyond consultation to joint decision-making and improving the state of industrial relations.
I wish to take an illustration of how this works. Under the Government's proposals in the Bill, the shop steward, if he represents his constituents inside his factory, is at risk of being sued for damages. He is at risk for doing something voluntarily for the people he represents. That is likely to lead to a great deal of suspicion, resistance and hostility. One can take the positive view expressed in the Amendment that by an extension of industrial democracy by workers' participation, that kind of person can be involved more clearly in the environment of the workers whom he represents and in planning the surroundings in which they spend much of their waking hours.
I argue acceptance of the Amendment on two grounds. First, it is good for the health of our industrial society generally to have a greater degree of democracy in participation. Secondly, industrial democracy and participation can make a more practical contribution to better industrial relations.
Let me take the general case first. There is a danger in every industrial society that where power becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, where the exercise of power becomes more remote and where, sometimes, the decisions which are made become almost incomprehensible to the people to whom they apply at the end of the line, people suffer from a lack of involvement, life becomes

less meaningful and responsibility is then removed further away from the point at which somebody is working and the point at which people are involved in their daily lives. When responsibility is far removed, people feel less responsibility for their own surroundings, and eventually this leads to their behaving less responsibly.
In a society which has many concentrations of power, particularly in industry, we have to provide some countervailing force which enables people to feel that they are more involved, that life is more meaningful, and that they have greater control over their organisations.
Let us look at some examples of how this tendency has developed.

Mr. Tinn: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. May I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that there must be at least a dozen conversations going on in the Chamber, which is making it extremely difficult to hear what my hon. Friend is saying.

The Deputy Chairman: I think the whole Committee will agree that it is much easier to speak if there is less noise than there is at the moment.

Mr. Fraser: Let us consider the people who work for the Rootes Motor Car Company. At one time the control of that company rested in this country. The control of the Ford Motor Company rested partly in this country. Those workers are now involved in an industrial system in which power and control over those companies is exercised, not in the United Kingdom, but in Detroit or New York. People feel alienated and less involved because control has gone out of their hands.
One can see this situation at its most effective in the United States, which has a society where people opt out, and this leads to violence, a society, understandably, which has many more strikes than we have, and the sort of society to which the Government turn to borrow its legislation. It is significant that the Government have not learned the lesson of American society, that it does not improve industrial relations simply to formalise a conflict. We must have something more positive to fight against the alienation and the lack of involvement which people feel.
In the same way as political democracy developed as a way of diminishing the prerogatives of the mighty, as a way of providing peaceful settlements of differences of opinion and conflicts of interest, so we must try to do something about solving the conflicts in industry by having a form of democracy and participation which begins to bridge the gulf between different interests in industry and provides a more peaceful way, a harmonising way, of settling disputes. Just as democratic Governments eventually learned that they had to govern by consent, so must managements learn that it is no longer a question of exercising perogatives. That is no longer the job of management. The job of management, in the words of my right hon. Friend, has to be to win consent, just as democratic Governments have to win consent.
There is an increasing recognition outside industry of the need for greater democracy, for greater participation. Local authorities recognise that when they become large and remote there is a lack of involvement and apathy, and therefore they break down the system and try to have community councils. That is the way it is going.
One sees it, too, in even more positive fashion in the control of schools in London where, by involving parents and people associated with the education system, one not only bridges conflicts and removes misunderstanding, but one does something else which the Government, in this Bill, are not trying to do. One harnesses the forces inside people who want to improve their environment and to improve the situation in which they live.
It is not just a question of providing a repressive framework and of de-limiting the size of the conflict. It is a question of harnessing people's experience and involvement to make a positive contribution to the improvement of our industry and our society, and that is the kind of thing that the Amendment suggests. The previous Government had the foresight to to do this in many of their nationalisation Statutes by trying to provide in those Statutes a system of industrial democracy whereby there was greater involvement and greater participation by workers. It was done in the lamented Docks Bill. It was done in some of the nationalisation Statutes, and it was done in some of the

mining legislation, too. The result may be seen in the industrial record of the miners.
The Solicitor-General has acknowledged the Government's debt to the United States as though the establishment of a framework of law would improve industrial relations. Looking at the figures we see that nothing is proved by them. Much more interesting is the considerable experience of those Governments with a legal framework in industrial relations that they have created by winning the co-operation and participation of the workers. The United States have about three or four times as many strikes as we have, whereas Western Germany, Norway and Sweden—countries which have introduced their legislation with the consent and co-operation of the trade union movement, and have developed systems of democracy and workers participation—have far fewer strikes than we have.
11.15 p.m.
There is the lesson. It is not merely the cliché of a framework that provides the answer; it is the provision of a positive involvement and a winning of the people's consent. That is why we want to try to move towards a more positive approach in our industrial relations.
We do not have to look to America to appreciate the results of not trying to win the consent of the workers. The Government are already learning, through the four major official stoppages that have occurred since 18th June, that failing to win consent and persuading people to participate leads to an escalation of industrial unrest. In their industrial relations policy and in this Bill the Government are going nuclear with the trade unions, and the results are being felt throughout the country.
The argument used to be put forward that official strikes were less damaging and more predictable than unofficial strikes. The Conservatives were able to say that only because, under the previous Government, we did not have official strikes of any length. The Government are now beginning to learn, by failing to obtain consent and involving people in decisions affecting our economy, that the results of official strikes can be catastrophic, and that on many occasions they are not even predictable.
The first limb of my argument is that participation is good for the general health of our society. We cannot measure morale in pounds, shillings and pence, or the way in which morale is improved so that individuals feel that they have some control over their society. We cannot measure the increase in the prosperity of the nation that arises as a result. But anybody who has been canvassing and realises how alienated people feel will recognise that it is worth trying to experiment to try to bring about participation and co-operation between management and workers, so that people feel that they have more control over their own affairs.
The second limb of the argument is that it will make practical improvements in industrial relations. I want to quote a short passage from the report of a Labour Party working party on industrial democracy. It says:
Our argument is not only that workers must have the right to determine their economic environment by participating in a widening range of decisions with management (and through public agencies), but also that the current situation in industry makes the recognition of that right and measures to secure it a matter of urgency.
We believe that the extension of industrial democracy is important both because of its likely beneficial effects on the well-being of individual workers and because of the contribution it can make to the overall efficiency of industry by removing many of the existing obstacles to a genuine collective effort in industry by both management and workers. Both factors urge us in the same direction, and we do not choose between them. They are of equal weight.
I now turn to some of the practical contributions which greater participation in industrial democracy can make. The first obvious one is in industrial health and safety—something that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) is dealing with in a Private Member's Bill which is to be published tomorrow and which I hope everybody on this side of the Committee will support.
It is recognised that we lose many more days through illness and industrial accidents than through strikes. There was recently legislation in view to establish a form of industrial democracy and participation to deal with safety at work, but the Government would not give priority to it and that proposed legislation fell away. That is the sort of participation that could take place. When a

chap is injured, his mates know the suffering and loss that is involved. They can make a positive contribution inside their firm or factory to reduce industrial accidents. But this can happen only if there is sharing in decision-making and if workers are allowed to help control the environment in which they work.
This is important in productivity bargaining. If we are to have long-term improvements in productivity bargaining, we need the active co-operation of workers and their representatives. We must have their initiative and imagination to ensure that these productivity bargains bring about rises in wages without increasing the cost of living. In all these things the workers' representatives inside factories and firms must have improved servicing facilities. In other words, management must co-operate more closely with them to ensure that they have all the necessary information to pass back to their members.
Decision-making in disciplinary matters could be shared. Most workers appreciate that those who are constantly breaking the rules—by often being late and so on affect not only the employers but the workers. There is no reason why, instead of the present exercise of arbitrary prerogatives, decisions on discipline should not be shared by workers. Decision-sharing across the board can help workers and management to identify areas of mutual interest, to the advantage of both sides.

Mr. Fidler: The hon. Gentleman has given a number of interpretations of the Amendment by explaining how worker participation could take place in a number of ways. How could a court interpret such an imprecise proposal? Next, in view of his earlier remarks about equality of opportunity, if it is so good for workers to participate in management, what view would he take of management participating in trade union affairs?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the weakness of the Government's case in the first part of that intervention. I do not accept that there should be a division, with the High Court in the middle, in an effort to foster the sort of co-operation and decision-sharing about which I have been speaking. As the second part of his intervention was meant to be flippant, I will not answer it.
The channel of representation must come from the workers and their representatives. There is no question of buying off the trade unions or by-passing them. This is a method of harnessing the initiative and co-operation of those who represent their fellows on the factory floor.
It is inevitable that there will be conflicts in industry. This was summed up in the opening words of our White Paper when we said that there must be conflicts in industry. The purpose of an industrial relations policy must be to try to harness the conflicting forces and use them constructively. That is the purpose of the Amendment, in stark contrast to the analysis of conflict given by the party opposite and their solution that only by regulation and penalty can one solve it.
I hope that the Committee can accept the Amendment.

Mr. David Mitchell: I hope that the Government will reject the Amendment. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) made six points. His first was the great importance from management's point of view of securing worker involvement, and many of us would agree with that. But we do not need this Amendment, and the principle of worker participation and all that follows from it, to obtain it and to carry our workpeople in the company's objective.
Second, I take issue with him on some of the extraordinary statements which he made. For example, he said that under the Bill a shop steward will be at risk if he represents the men who have chosen him. But he will not be if he is mandated by the union or if he works within the agreed procedure. On the other hand, if he chooses to work outside the agreed procedure and is not mandated by his union, he may find himself in a different situation. It would be a considerable distortion to accept the statement made by the hon. Member opposite as being a fair assessment of what the Bill contains.
Thirdly, he spoke about the need for winning the consent of trade unions and trade unionists for the Bill. How right he is. [Interruption.] But although many trade union leaders may have expressed opposition to the Bill, as have many hon. Members opposite, a majority of ordinary trade unionists up and down the country are in favour of the Bill. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Hon. Members will not further the Bill by noise.

Mr. James Sillars: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: Hon. Members speaking from a sedentary position ask me to prove the case that the majority of trade unionists support the measures in the Bill. I have had meetings with my trades council on the subject of this Bill, as I did on the subject of the previous Bill. I am asked to prove the case that trade unionists, as opposed to trade union leaders, support the Bill. The Daily Mirror, which is not a Tory rag but a responsible newspaper, is often quoted by hon. Members opposite. It conducted an independent poll of trade unionists as to their views on the contents of the Bill. Seventy-four per cent. of them said, for example, that they favoured binding contracts. I can understand why. The people who suffer almost as much as anybody else are those who are put on short time or sent home, unable to work because somebody else is on strike, although they themselves are not involved in the strike. There is ample justification for my assurance to hon. Members opposite that trade unionists up and down the country support this legislation.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I am dealing with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Norwood. He added that in the United States they have three or four times as many strikes. That is not true. They have three or four times as many working days lost per thousand employees. What he did not tell the Committee is that 88 per cent. of the strikes occurred at the end of three-year contracts. Only 12 per cent. occurred during the contract. With legally binding contracts there are three years in which management and workers can bring bigger prosperity to themselves.
An hon. Member opposite laughs, but I know that many workers among my constituents would like to have the wage packet of some of the workers in the United States. One of the reasons for their greater prosperity is that they have ensured that their firms are prosperous and can pay them higher wages.
11.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman's fifth point was that the Government had failed to give priority to legislation on safety at work. But then he let out quietly that it was only last June that the Administration of which he was a supporter had got round to introducing legislation on that subject. In other words, it took them nearly six years, yet he says that it is a failure of priorities on our part that after six months we have not introduced what his Government had not introduced after 5½ years. I do not think that other hon. Members would regard that as a very fair assessment.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman called on us for worker participation. I hope that his hon. Friends, especially those who served in the last Government, will have a quiet word with him after the debate and draw his attention to the sort of participation in the steel industry resulting from the steel nationalisation Act. In every case in the nationalised industries or under the Transport Act where there must be worker representation it has been not participation of those who work in the industry but appointments by Labour Ministers of outside trade unionists from other industries.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: For example, in the steel industry—

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to give misleading and incorrect information to the Committee and then refuse to have it corrected?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): Order. That is not a point of order. It is a matter of judgment and opinion.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Further to that point of order. I spent 16 years in the private steel industry as an employee of John Summers and Sons. In April, 1968, I was appointed a worker director of the British Steel Corporation, and in June, 1968, I was elected as Member for Sheffield, Brightside. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman makes a completely untrue assertion when he says that the employee

directors, or part-time directors, of the British Steel Corporation were not from the shop floor.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) has referred to sedentary interruptions. He has spoken of interruptions from this side being made in an improper manner, yet every time he refuses to give way. What right do we have on the matter of interruptions if the hon. Gentleman refuses to give way?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair but a comment by an hon. Member in debate.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) for giving an instance in which there was promotion within the industry. But in the case, for example, of the transport industry—

Mr. David Stodart: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time. Perhaps he will allow me to make mine. I am dealing with the inaccuracies of the hon. Member for Norwood, who in his speech, which was not interrupted from this side of the Committee, gave a whole series of inaccuracies which should not be on the record without correction. I hope I have succeeded in making my point.

Mr. John Mendelson: We have had a typical example of someone who speaks without knowing the facts about the steel industry, who does not represent an area where people earn their livelihood in the steel industry, either in management or as employees, and who lacks the courage and decency to withdraw his remarks after he has been put right. It is not untypical of some of the ignorant contributions we are having to these debates from hon. Members opposite.
I speak as the representative of a steel constituency in South Yorkshire and also as one who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Iron and Steel Act when it was passing through


the House. There must be other hon. Members present who served with me. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman who is now Chairman of the 1922 Committee was Chairman of that Standing Committee. I refer the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) to him. I am sure that he will respect the veracity and adherence to truth of the Chairman of the 1922 Committee in ascertaining whether we are correct in putting him to rights.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Amid the uproar amongst hon. Members opposite, he obviously did not hear me thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) for showing me one example where the general principle did not apply, but in the case of the Transport Act, when the Minister came to appoint a trade union representative he did not appoint one from within the part of the plant concerned. Therefore, my case is perfectly sound, despite the one exception which has been pointed out. I cannot accept the case the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has the brazenness to continue what he was saying before. I am not surprised. It is within the recollection of the Committee that he began by talking of the steel industry and that he only mentioned transport later. The steel industry was his prime example and he has not even the courage to say now, "I honourably withdraw". He stands convicted by his own admission.
However, there are matters which are much more important than the dishonesty of the hon. Member for Basingstoke, because the steel industry is a major industry and when we passed the Act nationalising it we had long and important debates on this subject of participation in the running of the industry. I do not see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) here at the moment—I am not saying that critically but inquiringly. He attends whenever he can and will be with us again on other occasions. All the worker-directors are drawn from the floor of the industry. The examples given are not exceptions, they are merely part of normal practice.
People who talk so glibly of the major productive industries are so ill-informed

that they do not know what they are talking about. The problem of participation is not an easy one. The Committee which dealt with the nationalisation of the steel industry took great care to hear every point of view. What the hon. Member for Basingstoke does not know, because he has not read the Committee reports, is that there was keen interest among his own colleagues in the participation of employees. This was not a one-sided matter. The hon. Member for Hallam and several of his colleagues showed interest. They have a much better appreciation of the importance of this subject than the hon. Member will ever have.
There is a debate going on about what should be the next step. We ought to be seeing whether we can go beyond the appointment of worker-directors, and whether the methods so far applied are best. The Government are deliberately putting the clock back in introducing this Bill. In spite of all the talk about wanting to strengthen trade unions and establish the principle so British trade unionism in what I called yesterday the "fig leaf" of the introductory Clauses, no one can hide the fact that the major parts of the Bill are deliberately designed to reduce the power and influence of the British trade union movement. It is all the more necessary that we should examine these Amendments carefully and try to create interest in worker participation in industry.
In spite of the warnings that the Under-Secretary has received from his hon. Friends I can see no reason why he should shy away from this Amendment. He will have to make a good case to persuade anyone in industry that he is right to do so. I have worked with the hon. Gentleman before and I have always thought that he had a realistic approach. I start without any prejudice. He can begin now with a clean sheet and establish himself as a man prepared to examine an Amendment on its merits. I have no idea what he will say, although I can normally predict what his right hon. Friend will say in answer to certain Amendments.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): My record is quite good. So far I have spoken once only in this Committee and I accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Mendelson: All the better. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had not spoken very often, and he is none the worse for that. Other hon. Members could be thought of as philosophers if they had spoken less often in the debate. I invite him to keep in mind two cardinal points. First, if the Government's protestations, which I do not accept, that they are interested in making a contribution towards creating more confidence in industry are to be believed, even by their own supporters—we know that there are many employers who are gravely concerned about the implications of some of the Bill's provisions and who are convinced already that they will lead to industrial strife rather than industrial peace—let the Under-Secretary of State explain how the Government feel about the Amendment, and let him accept the positive intention and purpose behind it.
The second cardinal principle which he should grasp concerns the standing of industry in the country as a whole. There is a dangerous feeling developing—I say this in all seriousness—that we are moving into a period in which every sector, be it agriculture, banking, manufacturing industry or whatever it may be, is concerned only with its own selfish purposes and ends. This contributes a great deal to the cynicism which hon. Members meet throughout the country, particularly among young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood put in convincing terms a contrary view, a view offering something positive, particularly to younger employees in industry. The least the Under-Secretary could do to make us forget the impression given by the "abominable young snowman" behind him would be to give a positive response to the Amendment.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Mr. Gurden, do I understand aright that we are considering Amendment No. 351, moved by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), and we may discuss at the same time Amendment No. 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer)?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): That is so.

Mr. Iremonger: Thank you very much, Mr. Gurden. Although I should go a long way with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Norwood—no doubt, we might identify differences here and there—I am not altogether happy about the terms of the Amendment itself. But I consider that these two Amendments taken together should commend themselves to the Committee in their intention.
We are considering the proposition that we should add one more to the general principles in accordance with which the Bill should take effect to promote good industrial relations. By Amendment No. 351, the hon. Member for Norwood would add:
the principle of workers' participation in management".
Amendment No. 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, is rather longer, but I think that every word of it counts:
the principle of effective consultation in decisions affecting industry with those concerned at each level, and with full disclosure of relevant information so far as reasonably practicable".
There is something to be said for both, and I cannot see anything wrong with the second Amendment. It would, in my view, greatly enhance the possibility of acceptance of the sincerity of the professions of my right hon. and hon. Friends if it were adopted. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept it.

Mr. Hooson: I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). I prefer Amendment No. 24. But we are in a difficulty here on account of the drafting of this Bill. Clause 1 contains the general principles, instead of their being in a Preamble. If we pass an Amendment of this kind, which I very much support, it will have no effect unless specific proposals are made in later Clauses, because the general principles are only an introduction to the Bill. If there is any doubt about the interpretation of later Clauses, then regard can be had to the general principles.
What we are discussing now is the principle of the matter and I am very much in favour of it. I am very much in favour of a Bill to deal with industrial relations in this country and, in general, I have supported the Government on this matter so far. I am very


much in favour of the principle enshrined in both of these Amendments, though I much prefer Amendment No. 24.
I suggested on Second Reading that it was a great mistake by the Government to go to the United States almost exclusively for their precedents, because, in many respects, the United States' background is very different from that of Europe and they have failed to pay sufficient attention to the developments in countries comparable to our own, particularly West Germany, Norway and Sweden.
In their own way those three countries have a much better industrial background, at least in modern times, than we have. Their industrial production per capita has gone up at a higher rate than in our country, and it is of great significance that those three countries have encouraged worker participation in managerial and other decisions. A great deal of time has been spent in West Germany trying to ensure that a worker can be represented on the board of directors, by virtue of his status as a worker. If shareholders have a right of representation on a board, why cannot a worker have the same right by reason of his status as a worker? It is argued that a shareholder's capital is at risk, but a person's job is involved if he is a worker.
If we are going to have greatly improved industrial relations in this country and break this tradition of strife, with the constant division of our country into capital on one side and labour on the other, we must try to bridge this gap. As I see it, these Amendments are directed towards trying to bridge this gap, and I hope that the Government can make a gesture and accept the second Amendment, in particular, because they are wrong in their basic approach to this whole problem. I prefer their Bill to doing nothing at all about industrial relations in this country, but I should have preferred to see the approach taken in Germany, where they began with a workers' constitutional law in 1952. That enabled plant in Germany to have very good industrial relations, by providing a statutory framework whereby, if any works employed more than, I think, 50 people, it was necessary for that works to have a works council on which workers had representation.
That is one of the secrets of the success of West Germany's industrial relations, and they tackled the problem not at the highest level as the Government have done, by laying down various rules for the unions and so on, but at the lowest level the plant level, where most of the trouble starts; where the friction between workers and management is likely to occur more often than anywhere else, and where, if there are no proper procedures available for dealing with a problem, it can get out of hand and spread from one plant to another and then throughout a whole industry.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will very carefully consider the two Amendments proposed, and that they will come to the conclusion that it would be right to accept one or other of them, and that in the code of practice which is to be published eventually, under Clause 2, some kind of practical expression can be given to the spirit of the Amendments.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The reason I want to make a brief intervention at this stage is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been blatantly unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). I shall come to that later.
First I want to say a word on these two Amendments. I do not find them objectionable. I found some of the comments made on them objectionable, and quite unparliamentary—and I look at the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) when I say that. I rather commend the words of the Amendments. Anybody who understands anything about industry knows the strength which can be given to good relations in industry by having worker participation at director level, particularly if the workers at director level come from the floor of the industry in which they become directors. I agree with that.
However, as my hon. Friend was saying, workers who have become directors have not generally been appointed directors in the industries in which they gained their experience. There have been exceptions, and we have had testimony to show that, and we want to see that practice grow properly, but we shall be blinding ourselves if we ignore the


fact that up to now there have been very many, perhaps too many, directors who have not been appointed as such in industries which they have really understood.
However, if these words mean what I think they mean I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at them with sympathy and, perhaps by Report, find words which will bring us all closer together than have some extreme speeches we have been hearing in this debate.
Now I come to the point which really brought me to my feet. The hon. Member for Penistone, as always, is able and articulate, and exaggerates, and he can be unpleasant.

Mr. John Mendelson: No.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: To accuse my hon. Friend, who made a very proper contribution, of dishonesty is not only unpleasant but is unparliamentary, and he was allowed to get away with it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. On two occasions the hon. Member has accused my hon. Friend of using unparliamentary language. With respect, Mr. Gurden, that cannot be true, because if it was true you would have stopped my hon. Friend. So would you please explain to the hon. Member that it is a reflection on the Chair to suggest, as he has, that you allowed my hon. Friend to use any unparliamentary language?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): Some accusations made in debate are matters of opinion. I am not sure exactly what the original remark was. I was not quite sure that I heard it correctly, but if it was a remark accusing an hon. Member of dishonesty I am sure that the hon. Member will withdraw, for such a remark would have been unparliamentary.

Mr. John Mendelson: I have no intention of withdrawing. Mr. Gurden. The hon. Member, as will be seen in HANSARD tomorrow, started off by talking about the steel industry. He said nothing about industry in general, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is now arguing. He talked about the steel industry, and then he mentioned the steel industry again, and, being caught out, he tried to make a general argument. It was to that that I directed myself.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Penistone made a charge against my hon. Friend. Whatever mistake my hon. Friend may have made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—whatever he may have said or done, the use of an unparliamentary term, calling him dishonest, within the hearing of the Committee, as the record will show, is wrong. That is not the first time the hon. Member has done it, and it will not be the last, and he never withdraws.

12 midnight.

Mr. Heffer: I understood that we were discussing an important Amendment and that the general view expressed by both Opposition and Government was that we should deal with it in a serious and intelligent manner without any filibustering or unnecessary speeches which have no relevance to the Bill. I ask, Mr. Gurden, that this should be drawn to the attention of the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Gurden): Decisions in these matters are for the Chair.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has neither the quality nor the qualifications to tell me how to conduct myself in a parliamentary debate. I am to some extent expressing sympathy with the Amendment put down by his hon. Friend, and I hope my hon. Friend will take that point into account.
I am concerned with the conduct of the Committee, and that is why I am dealing with the hon. Member for Penistone and some of his hon. Friends who misconducted themselves a few minutes ago. The hon. Gentleman chided my hon. Friend that he was not talking with authority because he did not represent a steel constituency. The hon. Gentleman said that he represented a steel constituency. I represent a railway constituency, but I would not presume to be an expert on railways any more than he has any claim to be an expert on steel.
My hon. Friend was maltreated. Four or five hon. Gentlemen rose in the middle of his speech to question him. Under the guise of a point of order it was said that because he said something which they thought was wrong he should automatically give way to them. We are in Committee, and that means that hon. Members can make any points they wish to make. The Mace is not on the Table—

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) to be filibustering in this way?

The Temporary Chairman: I detected nothing of the kind.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was trying to teach the hon. Gentleman some manners. If an hon. Member wishes to be called in Committee he is entitled to be called. On Second Reading an hon. Member is entitled to ask another hon. Member to give way. If hon. Members will remember that they are entitled to make a speech in Committee, this may restrain them from interrupting and so save time.
I hope that the Amendment will be looked at seriously. It would be a good thing to encourage participation even up to director level, but we must do it by giving strength to organised trade unions and by taking away the power to interfere from the unorganised trade unionists who are usually led by the hon. Member for Penistone.

Mr. Peter Archer: At this time of night I have no wish to delay the Committee by inviting a duplication of discussion. I agreed with most of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), and I am grateful to two hon. Gentlemen opposite who said that they preferred my Amendment No. 24. I hope they will not think me perverse if I venture to disagree with them, and I will say why.
There are three differences between Amendments No. 24 and 351. Amendment No. 24 speaks of consultation "at each level". What I envisaged was not merely an attempt to solve the problem of appointing workers to the board. It has already been said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that many of the most important decisions are taken within the framework of the workshop. Where those decisions are taken, it is equally important that there should be participation. I hope it will not be thought that there is a legal alliance when I venture to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Last night he called me a "blackleg", but certainly I wholly agree with him in regard to participation.
Secondly, my Amendment No. 24 invited a full disclosure of information. I

do not resile from that for a moment. Where there is not a full disclosure, one party is negotiating with hands tied behind his back. We shall have an opportunity to discuss both those points subsequently. We are now on what has been called an extended Preamble to the Bill. I doubt whether this part of the discussion is necessarily appropriate at this stage.
The third difference is that Amendment No. 24 uses the word "consultation", whereas Amendment No. 351 uses the word "participation." I prefer the word "participation" and it was only due to an oversight that I used the word "consultation". It would not be honest to invite the Committee to discuss Amendment No. 24 on the basis that I intended to make a distinction between "consultation" and "participation when such was not my intention. In these circumstances I do not propose to move Amendment No. 24, but invite the Committee to take the same point on Amendment No. 351.
I make no apology for the imprecision in either the word "consultation" or the word "participation". The point was raised that these words would be difficult to construe as a point of law, but that point hardly lies in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite when, in the Clause itself, they are inviting the courts to construe the principle of
collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted".
It will certainly be no more difficult for the courts to construe words like "participation".
What was in my mind in proposing the Amendment was the essential principle that it is the right of employees to feel part of the undertaking in which they spend the majority of their lives. One of my objections to the introduction of traditional legal concepts into industrial relations is that those concepts themselves are in need of a certain degree of modernisation. The whole of the existing law on industrial relations is based on a concept of the law of contract which was developed to meet the needs of merchants in the City of London. It met them extremely well and continues to do so. However, I doubt whether it meets the needs of most of the situations that arise from day to day, and indeed from hour to hour, on the shop floor.
We are still beset with the feeling that, unlike the management and shareholders who are part of the enterprise, the employees are not part of the enterprise. They are people with whom the enterprise makes contracts for the supply of components in a workshop that may be a hundred miles away or with the customer a hundred miles away for the disposal of products. The employees are no more closely associated with the enterprise than any other suppliers in other enterprises.
That is fundamentally open to challenge. To say that the employee may spend the greater part of his working life day by day and year by year in the service of an undertaking but is not part of it, but merely a party to a contract, whereas somebody who last week acquired a bundle of shares and does not even know what the company makes, is a member of the company is fundamentally wrong and until that is reformed, it does not do to try to bring the tradition—

Mr. McBride: Is my hon. Friend making the proposition that where management is entitled to a fair return on capital investment, my fellow worker is entitled to a fair return because he has invested his life?

Mr. Archer: I could not put it better than that.

Sir E. Brown: If we are to follow that to its logical conclusion and we have a year where shareholders sustain a loss, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that workers in that industry take a cut?

Mr. Archer: Unhappily, there are employees or ex-employees in my constituency who found themselves in that position and their loss was much greater than that of the shareholders.
I challenge the idea that it is a matter for the decision of management who shall be engaged as employees whereas those who find themselves working shoulder to shoulder with them day after day have, at best, a right to be consulted where appropriate overall.
Surely their interest in the people over whom they work is at least as profound as that of management? The concept is that it is a function of the company whether they shall transfer production from a factory in my constituency to

Japan, but those in my constituency are at least as concerned in that decision as the people who take the decision a hundred miles away.
In considering the Bill I was drawn again into reading a book which sent cold shivers down my spine when I first read it, the book by Ellen Wilkinson called "The Town that was Murdered", which partly impelled me to join the Labour movement. The theme was the remoteness of decisions from those employees concerned with the decisions.
The book concerned the formation of a company called National Shipbuilders Security Ltd., formed to rationalise the shipyards. Its whole purpose was to buy a shipyard and close it down and deliberately destroy the equipment so that those employed there saw, not only the loss of their jobs, but the loss of their whole prospect of being employed for generations. This would be a harmless excursion into history were it not that the remoteness of decision-making is still with us.

Mr. Derek Coombs: No one who has practical experience of decision-making would disagree that worker participation should be encouraged. I think it should be encouraged as much as possible, but I do not see how this can be given practical expression in the Bill. Participation is important and trade unions could play a much more active part but have not so far, in my experience, tried to relate increased profitability to wage increases and annual bonuses. If the party opposite encouraged the trade union movement in that direction, they would be doing a great service to the British economy.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Archer: At this stage we are discussing Clause 1, the extended Preamble. There may be opportunities later to discuss how we could write into the Bill some practical suggestions for furthering these ideas.
If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to demonstrate their commitment to this principle, they might do worse, as my hon. Friend said, than accept the principle of the Employed Persons (Safety) Bill which is to be moved in due course by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan).


That sets out the whole idea of participation by those most immediately concerned, the employees, in an important sector of industrial relations.
In fairness, I say at once that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) said something similar when we discussed the Employed Persons (Health & Safety) Bill on 2nd March last year. The hon. Gentleman said:
The improvement of safety standards must, in the last analysis, depend upon willing co-operation between management and worker." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March. 1970; Vol. 797, c. 70.]
The only point where I suspect that we differ—the hon. Gentleman may be able to reassure me even on this—is that I do not see the distinction between applying this in the important sphere of industrial safety and in other aspects of industrial relations.
I venture to suggest that there are obvious limitations to this kind of principle. Clearly I do not suggest that people should be invited to take technical decisions for which they are not qualified, any more than I suggest that the chairman of the board should take decisions which are properly taken by the electrical consultant as to which way round the power supply should be connected. I venture to suggest that the assumption is basically wrong that those who have contributed money are more intimately concerned than those who have contributed their life's work.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would, I think, be on balance an actual loss if the proposed new paragraph were added to this subsection. I want to tell the Committee briefly why I think so.
I found myself entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), who moved the Amendment, when he laid stress upon the function of management—indeed, the necessity for management—to win consent. That was the important idea which the hon. Gentleman emphasised a number of times in his speech. In fact, that truth goes far beyond industrial management. In all spheres of Government or leadership, the winning of consent is of the essence. No enterprise of any kind can succeed as it should—indeed, it can hardly survive—without the winning of the necessary consent.
Sometimes I feel that in the language in which industrial relations and industrial disputes are discussed in this country there is a tendency to overlook the fact that the responsibility for the obtaining of consent is a prime responsibility of management. It is not something, as it were, shared fifty-fifty between employer and employee, between management and workers. It is at the heart of management. If there is a breakdown in relations between a company and its employees, between management and workers, then the first place to look for the cause and the responsibility for that breakdown must be with management, since, without the winning and maintaining of consent, management itself cannot function. To that extent I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Norwood. Indeed, I stress the point perhaps even more than he did.
But just because this is specially the responsibility of management, I do not believe there are any general rules which we can lay down about the methods by which that responsibility is to be discharged. There was a good deal of talk in the earlier stages of the debate about representative directors and forms of representation of workers on the board. This may be, and no doubt is, one of the methods which may be used for the purpose of the winning of consent; but the ideal approach to the winning of consent is as various as the forms of enterprise themselves. Indeed, I would go further and say that it varies with the personality of the actual management of the undertaking. This, therefore, is a responsibility which we cannot seek to capture and frame within general rules or laws.
The hon. Member for Norwood referred several times to conflict as the necessary environment of the relationship between management and workers, between employers and employees. There is here, I think, an important and a rather dangerous confusion. It is a confusion between conflict, on the one hand, and difference of function, on the other hand.
There is a distinction of function between management and workers, as there is between supplier and customer, buyer and seller. The difference of function, however, which for efficiency may well need to be as sharp and clear as


possible, is not conflict. Indeed, that difference of function is itself an essential of co-operation. We falsify the picture when we introduce the notion of conflict into these economic relationships. That is another reason why, in the search for the particular form through which a management will win consent, we would be ill advised to go in search of general principles and general regulations.
Having said that, I come to the question whether we should add the proposed paragraph to the subsection.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has made the point that there is a clear demarcation between employer and employee. Will he indicate where this difference between manager and worker lies in a nationalised industry?

Mr. Powell: If, in the nationalised industries, that distinction is blurred or is of a different character from what it is in private enterprise, that it may well be a reason why, as was brought out earlier in the debate, certain specific provisions on that head had been made in some of the nationalisation Acts. The hon. Member may well have a point there.
I return, however, to the question whether we ought to add this paragraph to the subsection. I have indicated that I am no admirer of the idea of writing into the law of the realm the sort of generality which we find in the subsection; but at least we can say of the generalities at present in the subsection that they refer to matters which can be assisted, and certainly can be affected, by the legislation which follows in subsequent Clauses. "The principle of collective bargaining", for instance, is general enough in all conscience, but at least the Bill is about the framework of collective bargaining.
If we introduce into the subsection the principle to which the Amendment refers, we are likely, first, to give the false impression that the responsibility for winning consent, which rests with management, can somehow be affected by legislation, can somehow be altered one way or the other by provisions in a Measure of this sort, whereas that responsibility will be the same after the Bill is on the Statute Book as it was before. So we obscure what ought to be

clear by the suggestion that the winning of consent can be facilitated by such legislation as this Bill. We also imply, which I believe is equally false, that deductions could be drawn from the necessity of winning consent as to what ought and ought not to feature in the remaining Clauses of the Bill.
I submit, therefore, that in this context the paragraph would not merely be irrelevant but would be harmful, in that it would tend to imply that that can be made a matter of law and of regulation which is implicit and inherent in the responsibility of management itself.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I could not help feeling that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) shifted from one foot to the other during his argument. At one time he seemed to be in favour of workers' participation, but when it came to the crunch he retreated as rapidly as he could from the conclusion of his own argument.
We are dealing with a general preamble. The central purpose of the Amendment is the principle of workers' participation, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody does that in Germany where the principle of Gleichmerechtigung has been introduced, where the principle of participation has been made a reality, it has worked successfully. In West Germany the strike record is one which can be the envy of the Western world.
As regards the practical illustration of this theme, I think the proof lies to hand in the fact that here there is direct worker participation in the direction of firms. So far from there being a conflict of tensions which the right hon. Gentleman spoke about, somehow synthesised in a working together of workers and management on two different sides of the table, here is proof that participation can work.
There is one argument for participation which perhaps may not have been advanced this evening, and that is the fact that one of the most compelling reasons for strikes is the monotony of labour. In industrial cities such as Coventry we find time and again that men who are interested in their jobs, who are concerned for their families, are ultimately driven to strike simply because they feel


that their function is one of a helot, that they are turning a screw or moving a spanner, and they are doing things which are merely repetitious, which are soulless, and which divorce and alienate them from the function of the company as a whole.
One of the essential things to do to create an effective system of industrial relations—and that should be the purpose of the Bill if it has any purpose at all—is to try to make the worker feel that he has some part to play in the operation of the company of which he is a member. For this reason the principle should be enshrined in the Bill that there should be worker participation, either in a constitutional form which would give workers access to the board, or give them the opportunity ultimately of becoming members of the board. Unless there is in the Bill some principle which enshrines the policy that a worker is not condemned permanently to sit on one side of the table, but that there can be an interaction between management and labour in such a way that the worker can aspire to and achieve the direction of his company in some measure, we shall perpetuate a system which dates from the first Industrial Revolution, in which there are two sides of industry, with one side completely alienated from the control and direction of the company of which it is a member.
In their reaction to the progressive ideas which are represented on this side of the Committee hon. Gentlemen opposite have introduced a kind of Victorian workhouse politics. They would like to effect a return to the attitudes and principles which governed the first Industrial Revolution, but that simply will not do. What is really necessary if there is to be a constructive creative tension and not the conflict which hon. Gentlemen opposite claim they are interested in ending—if there is to be constructive co-operation between management on one side and labour on the other—is that there must be some hope for the men doing the soulless operations which mass industry requires today that they will have a direct participation in the control of the company.
12.30 a.m.
I will not use the word "management", because that evokes certain technical considerations. I confine my-

self to the idea of participation as an aspect of control. In the 20th century it must be clear that men who feel that they are merely objects in a consumer-producer society, and feel they have no opportunity of determining their own destiny, will ultimately react by engaging in precisely the kind of wildcat strike that the Bill is endeavouring to bring to an end.
If the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had the courage of his convictions he would not only have spoken in favour of the Amendment, as he did at the beginning of his speech; he would have come to the clear conclusion that he should support it by his vote. I hope that the Amendment will be pressed to a vote, because the theme of participation is clearly the theme of industrial democracy, without which there cannot be any kind of social democracy. Unless the worker in his place of work feels that he is participating not only in creating an end product but in the social action in which he is involved, we shall continue to have the conflicts and divisions that the Bill professes to seek to end.
I hope that the Amendment will be carried, because unless we think in terms of industrial democracy—unless we give the worker the opportunity of feeling that the old regime of management and labour sitting in permanent confrontation on two different sides of a table is coming to an end—even if the Bill is passed I am sure that the resistance of the worker to being treated as a helot in his own place of work will continue, and will lead to the strikes that the Bill is seeking to end.

Mr. Gower: I echo the sentiments of those of my hon. Friends who say that they approve of the motives which inspire the Amendments, but I share the misgivings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) at the incorporation of this kind of wording in the Bill. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) was right to describe the tedium of modern repetitive processes in industry, but I cannot believe that a person engaged in some process in the motor car industry will find that tedium any the less because one of his former colleagues is now on the board. Those processes are tedious; that is the nature of much


of industry today, but I cannot believe that the mere addition of a worker-director will in any way remove this unpleasant attribute of much of modern industry. To do that we must look elsewhere.
Like my hon. Friends, I approve of any measure that will tend to lessen the harshness of those processes that have tended to separate employers and employees; but to do this we should look not to this kind of Amendment. We should consider some extension of industrial co-partnership and the introduction of fiscal measures to encourge the spread of that kind of thing in industry.
There is another misleading factor about the Amendments. If we adopted the principle of workers' participation we should be giving blanket approval to the idea that it is the right solution in all cases. Our industry is so varied in size and character that it would be most inappropriate in some cases and very appropriate in others. It may best be achieved by the strengthening of workers' councils or by improved joint conciliation machinery. It need not necessarily always be satisfactorily achieved by putting a worker into management.
Management can be a particularly imaginative function. Sometimes a certain genius is required. Often a firm will owe everything to the imagination of one man. For example, for Tesco's and other firms in the distributive trade the departure of one man from the board could be a severe blow.
I agree that we want to narrow the harsh division that at present exist in industry. I do not believe that this will be done by this sort of blanket proposal which, if applied to some industries, could have disastrous results.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Hon. Gentlemen opposite not only lack understanding of this subject but also lack imagination. When they can suggest, as the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) did, that worker participation boils down to putting one worker on a company's board, we begin to realise how little they know about this problem and why it is becoming such an issue in the nation.
I have refrained from taking part in this discussion because I have not regarded myself to be an expert in Indus-

trial relations. But having heard some of the contributions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I see no reason to remain silent.
I will give an example of a strike which caused me considerable concern. It occurred just before the last election. I went to a factory gate meeting at Rootes, now Chrysler, in Linwood where the boys said, "We're sorry, Norman. We appreciate that a strike at this time will be exploited, but it cannot be helped." And it was exploited, but that is not the point of my example.
At that motor car factory many men work on the track. If there is a hold-up in the trim shop, there is a hold-up in the track. The same applies to every other department. With regular monotony, the vehicles roll on and off the track and the men who work on it are anxious to be put on to other individual work.
The management were recruiting men and they were finding it easier to recruit people for the individual work rather than for the track, first because it is more attractive work and second because they need train the men only for the individual jobs they would be doing. Meanwhile, the track men were anxious that new staff should come in through the track and progress to the individual jobs, as they had to do. The strike arose simply because the management could not appreciate the desire of the men to get off the track onto more individual work. This is the kind of problem which can be solved if we have the right concept of worker participation at an earlier stage, not when they are coming to conflict and demanding meetings. Management should understand the feelings growing up among workers. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) will understand the track neurosis concept.
A representative on the board is valuable, because workers can feel that they have a voice there of someone who understands. We have made a little progress. It has required intervention by Government to do it. We have had the example of the steel industry. Another example was the unfinished experiment at Fairfields. Fairfields was, unfortunately, absorbed in Upper Clyde Shipyard. But the failure of the experiment brought in participation in two ways. First, there


was a common purpose between Government and workers' participation—I remember hon. Members opposite sneering at the time—in the form of investment of trade union money. There was a lot of criticism about the way it worked out. Nevertheless, there was this participation of trade union money plus worker representation on the board. It was only a tentative experiment. Hon. Members should read Professor Alexander's book "Fairfields—An Unfinished Experiment". The experiment did not stop conflict. There is sometimes merit in conflict. There is plenty of conflict in the trade unions, but that does not stop them doing their job. There is plenty of conflict in management. At Fairfields there were conflicts, but they were resolved very often at mass meetings in the cinema when the entire work force was there sometimes, knocking hell out of the management, and vice versa.
This goes well beyond merely the appointment of one member to the board. There is a point in what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) says. He distrusts the enunciation of general principles in a Bill. That is a matter for his Front Bench to decide. He distrusts further the writing in in legislative form of these general principles. Many of us on this side of the House distrust most of the legislative writing in of some of those principles too. Participation requires, above all, a lack of legislation in its handling. We do not use law to relate problems within a family. We do not need to use law to get the right kind of relationship in industry. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there is some excuse because the Bill deals with industrial relationships, and sets out the method of solving disputes and so on.
Hon. Members opposite must recognise the amount of open hostility and tension which they are creating and the lack of trust in the Government which exists. We see it in the statement of Mr. Chapple, who is not normally a very extravagant speaker, when he referred to the membership of the power inquiry yesterday. With the kind of distrust and hostility which the Government are creating, I have never known a nation to be divided in two so quickly by a Government.
The acceptance of the Amendment would at least give us something to build

on for the future. If it cannot be spelled out in detail in the Bill, it can be spelled out in detail by practical methods. My hon. Friend suggested that it could be done in my Bill to be published tomorrow which would introduce workers' committees on the question of industrial safety. All hon. Members should support this, because something like three times as many days are lost through industrial sicknesses and disease as are lost through strikes. This would be a practical manifestation of the Government's serious and genuine concern about the problem of working days lost. I place great hopes in the Minister, both for my Bill and the Amendment. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to accept it.
Above all, I ask Conservative hon. Members one other thing. There are certain trigger words which, when used in the House, set off a kind of reaction in hon. Members opposite that shows their failure to understand the nature of the people with whom they are dealing. I have heard the words "shop steward" produce giggles and sometimes jeers on the benches opposite. I think that below the surface of some of the Conservative back-benchers is a kind of contempt for workers, a kind of feeling that they cannot run their own affairs, and above all a profound determination to try to ensure that they are never given the opportunity.
The Amendment will be a test of their sincerity, and I hope that they accept it. I hope that the first manifestation of their acceptance will come when my Bill is discussed in a couple of weeks' time.
I appeal to hon. Members opposite, "Please have some imagination. Do not just restrict yourselves to the thought of one man on the board. If you are genuine in trying to create one nation, this is one way to try to set about doing it".

12.45 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: These Amendments are interesting, but what has been most interesting in our discussion is the degree of harmony expressed on both sides about the spirit of the Amendments. There has not however been quite so much harmony about the wording.
I thought that I would welcome Amendment No. 24, and I rather regret that the hon. Member for Rowley Regis


and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) confused the issue somewhat by saying that he no longer wished to press it because he had intended to incorporate "participation" in it instead of "consultation". If his Amendment were taken simply as it stands I should be more than willing to support it, because I think that it is constructive and helpful, and that its wording is most reasonable.
I should like particularly to congratulate the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) on the fine, and in many ways luminous, way in which he spoke about the importance of participation when speaking to Amendment No. 351.
Everyone who has experience of personnel management or has spent many years in industry will know that he is right. But, again, the precise definition of what the hon. Gentleman wanted to express seems to me to have escaped him. He referred to the situation in Germany. What he should have noted is that in Germany the board is divided into two halves—the supervisory board and the executive board. It is on the supervisory board that the Germans have established the principle of worker participation, not on the executive board.
If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment had read," … the principle of workers' participation in supervision of management …", it would have been a really constructive and sensible suggestion. But as it stands it could only be confusing, and I would not be prepared to recommend my hon. Friend to accept it. It is very important to separate the supervision of the executive from the executive function itself. It is unfortunate that British company law has not yet followed the German example in making this clear distinction. Until it does, such an Amendment is bound to be premature.

Mr. Sillars: I support the Amendment. Like every hon. Member on this side, I am anxious for the creation of harmony in industry. But we must look at industry dispassionately and objectively, analyse the situation on that basis, and after that analysis build a reasonable structure for industrial relations. Its foundation, to use one of the favourite words of the Solicitor-General, must be realism.
One of the first questions we must ask ourselves when considering industrial relations concerns the issue of conflict. Is conflict inevitable and necessary?
I take issue with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who tried to relate the differences between capital and labour to the differences between a man selling a shirt for Marks and Spencer and a man buying it. There is a vast difference. It arises on the point that capital and labour involves political power in this country and the allocation of political power between the group holding capital and the group which sells its labour. There is bound to be conflict. There is necessarily a conflict of interest and we would do well to recognise that that fact will exist irrespective of the type of society one lives in. Poland is a Communist society but the recent events there clearly illustrate that there is a conflict of interest involved between capital, be it State capital or not, and labour.
Industrial relations is no place for the do-gooder in industry. I used to work with the Scottish T.U.C. in charge of its Organisation Department. About 18 months ago, I had a letter from a religious organisation suggesting that the way out of our industrial problems was to give a Bible to every worker in the country and recommend to them the acceptance of the principles contained therein—two million Bibles in Scotland would resolve all our industrial problems.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: But would not my hon. Friend agree that, if the principles involved in the Bible, Christian principles, were lived up to by everybody in industry, we would not be sitting here at five minutes to one o'clock on a Wednesday morning wasting our time?

Mr. Sillars: The only prize I won at a school was a Bible and I regard myself as a reasonable expert on the Bible. I bring the matter of the Bible up only because I want to bring home to the lawyers opposite the great difficulty of legislating in human relations. The Word of God, handed down thousands of years ago, has caused untold trouble through the different interpretations put upon it. If that has happened to the Word of God, God help us when we come to the word of the Tory Party contained in this Bill.
We are involved in a basic situation of life. One of my fundamental objections to the Bill is to the assumption that runs throughout it, and has been spelt out by hon. Members opposite—that the workers are like commodities, that somehow or other they can be treated by trade union officials and signed away to them quite happily like a bill of account. They are nothing of the kind. Workers do not divest themselves of their humanity the moment they clock in. They are the same people inside the factory as they are outside. They have a point of view. They have hearts and minds. They are flesh and blood. They can be quick to anger. They can have an off-day like anyone else. Any man who thinks he can legislate, through a framework or straitjacket of law, to take account of every human situation that arises in industry is a fool, because human beings are involved.
But part of the trouble with the Conservative Party is that they do not want harmony in industry at all. They want to shift the balance of power in our society towards the employer whom, by and large, they represent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot complain if we say that we do not trust them in this matter, because when one examines the employer's side of industry they do not even trust themselves. One of the biggest growth industries in Britain is industrial espionage, and one of the other big growth industries is anti-industrial espionage. They have the espionage men going where we sensible people in the Labour movement have Bridlington to resolve our problems. We do not really trust the Conservative Party at all, and I should be most surprised if they accepted this Amendment, which is concerned with the principle of participation.
Perhaps I should spell out what I regard as being essential in participation. I do not want workers to be patronised by being handed a stencilled copy of what the managing director thinks they should have as information. When I speak of participation, I mean the right to an effective say in marketing policies, in pricing policies, in sales policies and, most important of all, in investment policies, because the worker is entitled to a say in investment since that determines his job opportunity and the job opportunity of his children. Last, but

by no means least, when I talk of participation, I mean the right to have the employers' books opened up to see whether we are dealing with honest men. Most trade unionists regard that as an essential ingredient of participation and I suggest that if the Conservative Party want to move towards a harmonious situation in industry, in order to remove as much of the conflict as possible, they will have to come to an effective worker participation scheme much quicker than they realise.
It was Aneurin Bevan, one of the great leaders of the Socialist movement, who coined the phrase:
The need to take control of the commanding heights of the economy …
Since he coined that phrase, the commanding heights have become more commanding, and his commanding heights are now the foothills of some economies, both in this country and in European and world contexts. The position of the individual worker vis-à-vis his employer is relatively worse than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and he is much more isolated in his work situation than he has ever been before. Working people are now reaching out—vaguely perhaps—for a degree of industrial democracy. My grandfather, who took part in the General Strike and the rise of the trade union movement, put a great deal of faith in the political franchise, but, as events have proved, that faith was wholly unjustified. The political franchise is not enough. The worker needs an industrial franchise to have a greater degree of control of the power in industry, if he is to control his life and his standard of living.

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Member has been talking about the very responsible jobs in which he thinks the worker ought to participate, such as marketing, investment, finance and so on. Jobs of that sort would be done at boardroom level, so I presume that he is talking about worker participation at that level. I wonder whether the hon. Member could answer a question. If there is worker participation at the boardroom level, then, presumably, in the hon. Gentleman's view, the worker will remain a worker. But will he remain a worker in the view of the other workers whom he has left?

Mr. Sillars: Yes. Provided that the scheme for the introduction of worker participation is a sensible and voluntarily agreed scheme, I believe that he will. But I should confess that there are difficulties in constructing a worker participation scheme. It is a fair criticism of the trade union movement, that we have waited far too long and have been far too dilatory in moving towards the situation where the T.U.C. has recently set up a high-powered committee to examine the private sector. The last Government had a committee working which now, through the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations on the Railway Industry, has a contribution to study in the public sector.
I regard it as essential to introduce and develop workers' participation. It is a thoroughly sound principle. The prerequisite for industrial peace in this country is industrial justice, and the prerequesite for industrial justice is a fair and effective say for the British worker in the place at which he earns his livelihood.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) that I am not here to represent the employers. I am a member of the Government, and, for good or ill, I am here to represent my constituents as well. The sort of comment which the hon. Gentleman made does not help a debate such as this, which has been extremely serious and, if I may say so, one of the most interesting and one of the best discussions which we have had so far on the Bill. Apart from two spirited interludes concerning my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), all the contributions have been thoughtful, and, while there has been a diversity of opinion expressed, a great deal of interest has been aroused, as has been evident from the number of hon. Members who have taken part.
I shall approach the subject with the same seriousness. Although I shall probably say things which hon. Members will not accept, I shall none the less mean them sincerely, for this is a subject in which I have a keen personal interest, as has the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). The hon. Gentleman once did me the honour

of supporting a speech which I made on a theme closely related to tonight's debate, that is, the soullessness of some kinds of work and the need for extra help for those who have uninteresting jobs. It is a great human theme, tied up very much with the principle of human dignity, and we should do ourselves a disservice, whatever our political party, if we did not recognise that it may present one of the big problems in the years ahead, probably during the rest of our lifetime at least. Those of us who have interesting jobs—even though we are still at it at one o'clock in the morning—sometimes tend to overlook that aspect of the matter.
I shall not succumb to the blandishments of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), but I assure the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton that we shall consider sympathetically the possibility of adding a principle similar to the one which he expresses in Amendment No. 24:
the principle of effective consultation in decisions affecting industry with those concerned at each level, and with full disclosure of relevant information so far as reasonably practicable".

Mr. Peter Archer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is encouraging when he makes that kind of approach. But, in that case, what is the distinction in his mind between participation and consultation which makes it so difficult for him to accept Amendment No. 351, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser)?

Mr. Smith: I shall come to that. At this point, I am glad to tell the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton that we shall look at his point sympathetically. It is just coincidence that I happened to be concerned last night and accepted his other Amendment. It will not necessarily become a habit. But we are pleased to have his contributions.
I entirely agree that we should encourage the idea that individuals who work in industry or anywhere else should feel part of the undertaking in which they spend so much of their lives. Employees must be encouraged more and more to be part of the enterprise in which they work. I am sure that enlightened managements agree with that, because it produces better results, it produces greater profits, and it creates a better standard of living for the community as a whole.
There is a point in the Bill which goes a little way towards encouraging better communication and that is the information which will be provided, in the larger companies, to employees. This will in many ways be akin to information provided to shareholders. The hon. Gentleman chided us a little, talking about a hand-out from the managing director. As we envisage it it will be useful and valuable information which will go a little way towards encouraging those working in industry to feel that they are part of the complex and know what is going on. It is important, it is a start, because there have been some managements who have failed to get even basic communications across to their workers. The Bill can be improved by a form of words such as that enumerated by the hon. Gentleman and that is why we will give due consideration to them.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) spoke with forcefulness and a good deal of passion. He took a line different from what I anticipated. I must be honest and say that I am far less happy about his Amendment. He referred to the lack of involvement and the feeling of the individual, in isolation, in some of the complexes in which he works. I agree with him about that, but his Amendment goes far too wide. It is far too general to be accepted as a main principle in the Bill. I agree with many of his points. The individual must be protected from the big battalions. He must be protected from both sides of industry, from the excesses of employer and trade union. In many ways this is what the Bill is about, because it asks for equal responsibilities from both sides of industry. It is fair in its application and basically promotes good industrial relations.
If we adopted this rather generalised principle we could well have a type of involvement advocated by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. He is entitled to his point of view, saying that he thinks that there should be worker participation in marketing and finance. I am sure that without the requisite skills this could be a recipe for disaster. We have to approach this carefully.

Mr. Sillars: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend's Amendment was far too wide. Can he explain how much wider it is than that

word "responsible" in Clause 1(1)(c)? With the best will in the world, at ten past one in the morning I cannot see the difference.

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Member will listen I will try to develop some of the matters that this would raise. He said that this would involve workers in marketing and financial decisions which I think would be unacceptable to large sections of industry. I do not want to get into a debate about the question of "responsible". It has very definite meanings to me, if it has not for the hon. Gentleman. In the circumstances the Amendment cannot be acceptable even though we accept that it is put forward with a great deal of goodwill and sincerity.
The hon. Member for Norwood also spoke about health and safety and said that we should be doing something about this in industry. He brought up the old chestnut of many more days being lost in industry through illness and accident than through strikes. I wonder how many factories have been closed up and down the country as a result of industrial accidents or illness. Perhaps very occasionally because of some very unexpected 'flu epidemic, or because of some terrible explosion which wrecked a factory, a whole factory has had to be closed, but we all know that, overall, the incidence of illness, as in the House of Commons or in offices or anywhere else, is spasmodic, whereas it seems to me that we have seen in industry, particularly in the British car industry in recent years, strikes occurring with regularity, in every other week in some cases, it seems, with various production lines closed. So I do not think we can equate health and safety with strikes in counting numbers of days lost.
We do not ignore this question of sickness and accidents. It is very important. It is a human problem, and we are all concerned—both Governments have been concerned—with it. Indeed, we are actively encouraging the Robens committee of inquiry into health and safety which the right hon. Lady set up during her period of office. We gave approval and a general welcome to Part I of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill which was brought before the House. I myself did from the Opposition Front Bench at that time. I know that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has introduced a Private Member's Bill which is virtually Part II of


that former Bill. He will know that, on behalf of the then Opposition, I expressed reservations about that Bill, though I admitted that there were good parts in it which could be of service; but I had a number of serious doubts, as did my hon. and right hon. Friends. What I would say to the hon. Member in all fairness is that we shall be debating this in extenso in due course when we can consider it on its merits, when the Bill comes up.

Mr. Buchan: I do not intervene to speak of my Bill, but of what the hon. Gentleman called an old chestnut of a comparison between 23 million days lost in 1969 through industrial injury and disease and 6·8 million days lost through strikes in the same period. I think the hon. Gentleman said it was a chestnut and that it was not a proper comparison. There are two points to be made about that. In the first place it is a reasonable statistical comparison. There is an overall statistic of work days lost through sickness or injury, and through strikes. It is a reasonable comparison. Secondly, quite apart from the fact that some factories are closed altogether as a result of accidents, there is, surely, the point that very often after a strike the lost production is caught up with again, but that when people are off work because of industrial accidents or disease they are off a long time, six weeks or two months, say, and that loss of production is often not caught up with—and they may not be able to return to work at all. This is not chatter: it is a serious point.

Mr. Smith: I accept that that is a problem, and it is an important problem and one which must not be overlooked in the context of the number of days which are lost, but my argument was that usually a whole industry or factory is not completely closed down because of illness, because its incidence is spasmodic, whereas debilitating strikes severely injure the economic performance and export performance of the country, when industry does go out of action almost entirely. That surely cannot be a good thing, and it is the unofficial strike which is so serious, and which is tackled by the Bill.

Mrs. Castle: I just take up the earlier point about safety, health and welfare legislation which we introduced and which this Government have given no guarantee of reintroducing in its entirety. Hence my hon. Friend's Bill. Would not the hon. Gentleman accept, when we are talking about workers' participation, that rights and responsibilities for safety are among the most practical expressions we would have of workers' participation? If the Government are going to pay any lip service to this theme, they must accept my hon. Friend's Bill.

Mr. Smith: As I said, we think the first part is sensible. On the second part, we feel that the voluntary concept probably can do as much as if not more than compulsion. The right hon. Lady anticipated her legislation by announcing the committee of inquiry which is far-reaching and may produce ideas which ultimately require further legislation.
Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Norwood were generally agreeable, although I do not think they can be tackled by the principle which he proposed. I agree with his plea for enlightened productivity bargaining and that there must be much more consultation with the individual worker to make him feel part of the organisation. Again it is important that the wording of the Bill should be precise.
The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) asked how the courts would interpret the principle put forward in the official Opposition Amendment No. 351. I agree that they would have great difficulty, and they would certainly have great difficulty in interpreting the phrase suggested by the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. John Fraser: Is not the point that the courts might have difficulty in interpretation but that a Commission on Industrial Relations would not? It is the introduction of the courts that leads to difficulties by having a uniform procedure imposed upon the parties instead of encouraging voluntary bargaining and imaginative and constructive attempts such as the one put forward in the Amendment.

Mr. Smith: There are several authorities which have to take account of these principles, including the C.I.R. and the


courts, and the phraseology must be accurate to ensure fairness. The first principle in the Bill is the best approach to industrial democracy:
(a) the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted;
That is the best guarantee of worker participation. I know that "In Place of Strife" is anathema to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), but if he can bear with me for once more quoting from it, paragraph 49 says:
There are various ways in which workers can participate in management. The most effective is through membership of a trade union which negotiates with management on all questions affecting conditions of employment including, for example, the introduction of new machinery, manpower planning and deployment, and disciplinary and dismissal procedures.
That is perfectly fair and leads one to the conclusion that participation is better achieved in that way than in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Norwood.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must admit that the Labour Government of which my right hon. Friend was a leading member passed legislation on the public ownership of the steel industry which introduced for the first time the formula of access to company papers and books being available to representatives of the work people. He is not prepared to go any part of the way towards such a definition in the Bill.

Mr. Smith: I was coming to that point. The Donovan Commission also had doubts about worker participation outside the theme that it should be done by collective bargaining, which was put forward in "In Place of Strife".
On the whole, it is far better to proceed on the lines of the proposals of the Amendment No. 351, bearing in mind that a carefully defined principle could perhaps be included, such as that put forward by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that if Amendment No. 24 was not to be proposed by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, where else would it be supported in the Bill? I believe the code of conduct will probably be able to bolster up that particular concept.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Smith: No, I am sorry. I keep on giving way. I shall be accused of stringing out this matter. There may be something to be said for carefully worked out experiments of the kind currently going on in the steel industry, but it would be foolish and incautious to accept this form of participation as being so well validated as to justify the embodiment of these principles in the Bill. If we are to consider worker participation at that level, I have grave misgivings about it, but I do not throw it out entirely.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Smith: No, I will not give way. The matter should be considered separately since it has implications for company law. This Bill is not the vehicle in which to put forward worker participation where it might involve those who would go on to boards. Management decisions usually have to be taken at a high level and the art is a pretty skilful one. I know that there are bad managements and bad directors who do not deserve to be in office, but in modern industry the large majority of people involved are professionals and are in the job because of their abilities. I think that in some respects a worker-director might find himself a fish out of water, perhaps with divided loyalties.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Smith: This is true. In big industry today most of the directors have come up the hard way. I can think of some who have come up from the shop floor, but they may be experts in marketing or in finance. Unless one has these particular individual skills, it could be very difficult.
The Industrial Relations Bill published by the Labour Government contained no provision for experiments involving worker participation. Indeed, in all the publications in connection with the Consultative Document put forward by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) there was no specific commitment to going ahead with worker participation. I believe that this is not the time to do it in the type of phraseology which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Norwood. Therefore, I must recommend to the Committee that, in spite of the good will behind Amendment No. 351 on many factors, we should reject it, but we


are prepared to look at the proposals advanced by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton.

Mr. Heffer: The Under-Secretary of State revealed his position and that of the Conservative Party by saying that a worker-director appointed to a board of management would feel like a fish out of water. This shows the basic thinking in the Tory Party about workers. They must always be kept in their appropriate station and must never emerge from it. Their appropriate station is never to become part of a board of management because they would not understand it, would be out of their depth, and so on.
It is a rather disgraceful remark, because at one time in this debate I almost got the impression, particularly from some speeches by hon. Members on the back benches, that the Government would accept the Amendments. At one time the olive branch was being held out and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), and other hon. Members were saying that there was a great deal in this Amendment. But when it comes down to it and the Government make their decision clear, the Amendment is too wide and could be a recipe for disaster and anybody who got there would be a fish out of water.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Would my hon. Friend give way? Would he not agree that one hon. Gentleman opposite has condemned the experiment of the British Steel Corporation with worker directors which has been going for nearly three years and talked about people being out of their depth. Ignorance shown by the hon. Member in dismissing this experiment in a few words shows how little he knows about the experiment which is the only one going on in this country in participation. In rejecting the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) the Under-Secretary has shown an ignorance of the position which has never been outdone in this Committee.

Mr. Heffer: I will not disagree with my hon. Friend, but the Minister at least had some knowledge that there were worker-directors in the steel industry, while it was clear from the speeches of some hon. Members opposite that they had no knowledge of it at all. They

revealed complete ignorance of the matter.
This is a serious business and I would like to dwell on the situation not only in our industrial society but in every industrial society in the world, whether in America, Russia or anywhere else. Increasingly, decisions are made by management which is remote from the shop floor and workers have become cogs in the mechanism of great industrial combines, publicly or privately owned.
We have to recognise that there is a deep difference between the workers in the great mass production industries and the old-time craftsman who had a real stake in his craft and had something to get his teeth into, with a job that he carried through while the worker in the mass production factories merely carries out a number of operations without having anything to say about the decisions taken in that factory.
To epitomise that, if we cast our minds back to that wonderful Charlie Chaplin film, "Modern Times", we see the type of problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) referred, of track psychology as the problem of modern industry. Workers feel alienated from their work because of this problem of having no function in the decision-making of their industries and factories. That is a problem we must face in industrial society.
1.30 a.m.
That is why we have put down this Amendment. We do not see it as something remote, something which is not real in industrial relations. It is at the very heart of industrial relations in a modern industrial society. That is why I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
I should like to comment on one or two of the points which have been made during the dispute—[Laughter]—dispute. It was a dispute, and it obviously is a dispute. If there was no dispute hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept the Amendment.
During the debate one of my hon. Friends pointed out that the Government were bringing in a Bill which would ultimately lead to bigger and better strikes. That is what the Bill means. It is supposed to deal with the problem of unofficial disputes. If the Bill was successful


in dealing with unofficial disputes, and if we followed the pattern of the United States' legislation, we would certainly get less strikes, but they would be bigger, longer and, in the long run, more damaging than strikes we get now. This apparently is what hon. Gentlemen opposite want. This is what lies behind their philosophy and thinking.
If we have an extension of genuine industrial democracy with the workers participating in managerial decisions, obviously we shall be laying the real basis for the elimination of the conflict in industry which arises from the simple fact that managements, on behalf of owners of and shareholders in industry, wish to make the maximum profit and the workers wish to get the best possible wages and conditions in terms of modern industry.
An important point was raised by one hon. Gentleman opposite during the debate. He asked: if the workers were involved in management, would they be prepared to take a cut in wages if the firm was doing badly?
This is a fundamental question which must be looked at in the light of the experience of workers' participation in management in countries where they do participate. The answer is that the workers, as a result of their activity in management, would meet and discuss investment, marketing, how much profit should be used, how much should be ploughed back, the level of wages during a certain period, and so on. That is what it would mean.
I am going to be a little heretical here. I believe that, even in a full socialised economy, we would need some form of competition to get the best type of product. My argument is not that there should not be competition; it is that the profits which are made as a result are

Division No. 61.]
AYES
[1.37 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil


Albu, Austen
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cohen, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Concannon, J. D.


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Conlan, Bernard


Barnett, Joel
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Baxter, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crawshaw, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgewood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cant, R. B.
Dalyell, Tam

wrongly used under capitalism but could be properly used in a socialised economy.

It is noticeable that, when we begin to deal with the problem of workers' participation in management, hon. Gentlemen opposite immediately lose interests. Apparently it is a matter which can be talked about in an airy-fairy way, but which they have no intention of putting into operation.

We in the Labour Party began with our worker-director experiment in the steel industry. It was only a first, faltering step. We would obviously like to go much further. There are much more diverse methods of worker participation, and I think that we should try them all and not be bound to one concept.

I accept the point, which has been made by some hon. Members, that if one merely takes a worker from the shop floor and puts him in as a director, it is possible that after a time he begins to accept the view of the management and does not represent the workers at shop floor level. Experience can teach us to overcome problems of that sort, however, and I believe that we could overcome them if we were determined to put them into operation in a sensible and intelligent fashion.

Hon. Members may say that this is not the sort of debate that we should have on the Bill, but I believe that worker participation in management is fundamental and at the heart of industrial relations in modern industrial society. Because of that, I ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment, particularly as the Government have decided to reject it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 255.

Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnes, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Delargy, H. J.
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadle, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McCann, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor
Sillars, James


Ford, Ben
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Springgs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ginsberg, David
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Hannan, Willaim (G'gow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Varley, Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin


Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Horam, John
Murray, Robald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric
Wallace, George


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael
Watkins, David


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitehead, Phillip


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


John, Brynmor
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. William Hamling and


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. John Golding.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bossom, Sir Clive
Cockeram, Eric


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bowden, Andrew
Coombs, Derek


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooper, A. E.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Braine, Bernard
Cormack, Patrick


Astor, John
Bray, Ronald
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Critchley, Julian


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Curran, Charles


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dalkeith, Earl of


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Dean, Paul


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Burden, F. A.
Deeds, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Benyon, W. R.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, G. B.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Carlisle, Mark
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, John
Chapman, Sydney
Eden, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Blaker, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Churchill, W. S.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Body, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Eyre, Reginald


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John







Fell, Anthony
Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fidler, Michael
Legge-Boucke, Sir Harry
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridsdale, Julian


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Gilbert
Foberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fowler, Norman
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rost, Peter


Fox, Marcus
MacArthur, Ian
Royle, Anthony


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McCrindle, R. A.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fry, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Scott, Nicholas


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Simeons, Charles


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Sinclair, Sir George


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maddan, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gorst, John
Maginnis, John E.
Soref, Harold


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Speed, Keith


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray
Sproat, Iain


Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stainton, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stoddart-scott, Col. Sir M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stokes, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger
Sutcliffe, John


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Molyneaux, James
Tapsell, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Money, Ernie D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Haselhurst, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Havers, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tebbit, Norman


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Temple, John M.


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar
Tilney, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Trew, Peter


Holt, Miss Mary
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hordern, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hornby, Richard
Normanton, Tom
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Howell, David (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wall, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hunt, John
Page, Graham (crosby)
Warren, Kenneth


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Iremonger, T. L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


James, David
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wiggin, Jerry


Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner
Wilkinson, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pounder, Refton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Woodnutt, Mark


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy
Younger, Hn. George


Kilfedder, James
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James



King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter



King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Mr. Jasper More and


Kirk, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 352, in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton): It will be convenient to the Committee if the following Amendments are discussed at the same time:

Amendment No. 353, in page 2, line 6, after 'State', insert 'and'.

Amendment No. 354, in line 7, leave out from 'Relations' to 'and' in line 10.

Amendment No. 346, in line 10, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 14.

Amendment No. 347, in Schedule 2, page 109, line 26, leave out Part II.

Mr. Rose: Yes, Sir Alfred. It is in subsection (2) that we go to the heartland of the case against the Bill. The existing agencies are to be placed within


the context of the National Industrial Relations Court. It will thereby take on a new form and a new significance. It is the injection of this legalism into the hitherto voluntary framework of industrial relations, and the agencies concerned with industrial relations, that is perhaps the most objectionable feature of this irrelevant and irresponsible assembly of trans-Atlantic abstractions.
Recently, in relation to the Family Incomes Supplement, we were told with some conviction by the Secretary of State for Social Services—and we listened with some incredulity—that what the country needs is F.I.S. If we are to continue with this "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice Through the Looking Glass" terminology, what this country does not need is E.N.I.R.C. It is ironical that this proposal should be made at a time when the French Government, on the other side of the Channel, have announced that intervention in such relations is damaging, and that there should be a movement towards a voluntary system of the type that exists in this country. Despite the Government's provocative actions, which have already doubled the number of days lost through strikes, we are, nevertheless, still only in the foothills of strike figures compared with the Himalayan peaks which prevail in those countries which have the kind of legal enforcement procedures and institutions which are now proposed.
More sinister is the fact that at a time when the C.I.R. was beginning to get off the ground on its basis of voluntary co-operation with the trade union movement and employers, the Government are now sabotaging the voluntary action begun by the C.I.R. and they seem hell bent, in direct contradiction to all that was implicit in the Donovan Report, on recasting legislation and erecting enforcing agencies which are already in the process of destroying hard-won voluntary co-operation.
Not only have the Government sabotaged the effectiveness of the C.I.R., but the bitterness in industrial relations injected by these proposals is already self-evident in the rash of industrial disputes deliberately fermented by the Government.
That well-known Left-wing militant Lord Robens summed up the fundamental fallacy of this proposal, and the proposal to create the N.I.R.C., in his Sir George Earle memorial lecture on 30th November last when he said:
On a more practical level, it must be agreed that the icy, iron precision of the law makes a strange bedfellow for the intimate, delicate fabric of industrial relations. Not many trade unionists or employers are versed in the disciplines or modes of thought employed in our courts. They are essentially practical men well versed in the arts of negotiation and compromise. By definition, these have flexibility and a pragmatism which cannot be reflected in a court, however informally constituted.
What we are contemplating here is the creation of what is, in effect, a new branch of the High Court, even if it is without the Jacobean costumes, as they were termed by the Solicitor-General at the Industrial Law Society.
That in itself is an action which ignores history. It conveniently shuffles off the traditional attitudes among the judiciary that led from the case of Regina v. Bunn via Taff-Vale, to Osborne and Rookes v. Barnard and Stratford v. Lindley. Throughout the history of industrial law, there has been sought the intervention of the legislature to prevent the disruption of trade unions.
In 1872 we were told by The Times, just as Bunn and his colleagues were going off for their term of imprisonment, in terms that echo in this Bill 99 years later:
It is the office of law in such matters to maintain the rules of fair fighting.
That was "fair fighting" in a situation in which the wealth, capital and the means of propaganda are concentrated in the hands of one of the combatants only. Lord Robens can see the damage that will be inflicted by the inflexible putative father of this Clause, conceived in the darkness of the pre-Donovan era in the shady confines of the Inns of Court—and more probably in the Inns of Court of the Conservative and Unionist Association. Like so many others in management, Lord Robens is aghast at the disastrous consequences of introducing the rigidity of law enforcement into industrial relations. In his lecture he pointed out that the imposition of the inflexible fabric of legally enforced rules into industrial relations could easily cause the downfall of the most moderate


elements in the trade union movement, and he said:
It is certain that neither employers, nor trade unions, nor Government, nor the people of this country can possibly benefit from such a situation. As far as good relationships and good manners are concerned, legislation and the law are not a suitable arrangement.
Indeed, the N.I.R.C. is hardly likely to attract any trade unionist into collaboration with its panel.
But it has laymen sitting on it. What we shall have in effect is a judge and an employer, and perhaps an academic with particularly reactionary leanings because nobody else will join it. This is the kind of body we shall be faced with. If the memory of Taff-Vale is remote today—some members of the Liberal Party might have been here, because some of their predecessors would be turning in their graves if they knew the turn their party was taking—the remoteness of the judiciary from any practical knowledge of industrial relations has not diminished over the last 65 years since Taff-Vale. In the United States and elsewhere it has become increasingly recognised that industrial arbitrators, rather than judges, are far better equipped to enter the field, as in 95 per cent. of cases they do. Judges are usually fair men. They are trained in the particular discipline—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We all know how generous and methodical is my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). Did he give notice to the Liberal Party that he would mention this? He will notice that not one member of that party has taken the trouble to be here. To have it on record, I should like to know whether he thought that one might be here.

Mr. Rose: Trying to give notice to the Liberal Party is like trying to give notice to a pin in a haystack.
Judges are usually fair men, trained in a particular discipline—the same discipline as the Solicitor-General and I were trained in—and rewarded since I have been in the House by increases in salary at the High Court of £4,500 per annum. But it is a discipline ill-suited to deal with the complexities of industrial relations. There are the Lord Wrights, with decisions as in the Crofter's case, and the Lord Donovans occasionally correcting the bias.
The problem inherent in using the machinery of courts in industrial relations was expressed in that classic and frank admission by certainly a radical judge, the late Lord Scrutton, when he said:
The habits you are trained in, the people with whom you mix, lead to your having a certain class of ideas of such a nature that, when you have to deal with other ideas you do not give as sound and accurate judgments as you would wish … it is very difficult sometimes to be sure that you have put yourself into a thoroughly impartial position between two disputants, one of your class and one not of your class.
The whole ethos of the Bar, with its pre-entry closed shop based primarily on ability to pay, heavily biased against the working class entrant, and the whole ethos and history of the higher echelons of the judiciary, is such that no trade unionist is likely to have confidence in the N.I.R.C. I do not know how many judges are members of working men's clubs, but I am sure that some share the same clubs as hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
The creation of the N.I.R.C., with its proposed functions and framework laid down in this Clause challenges the soveignty of Parliament. Responsibility is taken away from the Secretary of State, a responsibility which is subject to the supervision of Parliament. Judges will assume responsibility for the interpretation of some very imprecise definitions—we have had some already—of an unpublished code, of a metaphysical concept of fair practices, and the correction of badly drafted definitions which leave the obvious impression of a completely arrogant ignorance of shop floor practice. Hon. Members only have to glance across the pages of the Bill to see some of the definitions we have already discussed and the problems of interpretation.
Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), speaking for the Liberal Party, was talking about the word "responsibly", and this part was debated. As yet we have not had a definition from the Secretary of State, because the definition will have to be made by a court of law, which will protect the right of any person
to be a member of such trade union as he may choose".
Therefore, a miner may join the engineers' union, or U.S.D.A.W., according to the imprecise definitions in the Bill.
If we turn over the page of the Bill we find the words "deter", "penalize" and "discriminate against". "Discriminate against" was defined in the Race Relations Act, but it is not defined here in this context. No attempt has been made to define all these terms. This will be left to the N.I.R.C., which will have the remarkable task of interpreting 140 pages of what I can only describe as legalistic mumbo-jumbo. It will be for the N.I.R.C. to decide whether a trade union is doing
all that is reasonably practicable
with regard to the position that arises where an unconstitutional strike occurs.

Mr. Fidler: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Race Relations Act, which is based on voluntary action but in the last recourse must go to the courts. Where does he draw the distinction between that and the Bill?

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman may know something about the Race Relations Act, but his past performance in the debate indicates a scant knowledge of industrial relations. What he has failed to understand is that "discriminate against" is defined in the Race Relations Act in relation to that Act. It is not defined here; there is no definition Clause. The definition of "discriminate" in terms of industrial relations will have to be left to the N.I.R.C. I think that the hon Gentleman has missed the point.
It will also be for the N.I.R.C. to decide what is reasonably practical for a trade union to do when there is a so-called unconstitutional strike. What does that mean? According to the Solicitor-General's evidence to the Royal Commission at paragraph 5776, he expects trade unions to sue their members, to suspend them—indeed, to expel them. His evidence was so pitiful that it was no wonder he admitted that it was not a question of cutting down the number of strikes—I refer hon. Members to paragraph 5795—but merely altering the frontier at which they took place. He admitted:
We can all be demolished by such questions as, how effective is the remedy going to be?".
The secret is in shifting the frontier. What we really have is a euphemism for weighting the scales.
They are to be held in the long arm of the N.I.R.C. The ultimate regulation of industrial relations is henceforth to be entrusted to courts and lawyers. A veritable lawyers' paradise is to be erected on the dismembered remains of the body that was once voluntary industrial relations procedure.
What is more, so much of the legislation to be enforced by the N.I.R.C. is unenforceable that it will severly damage the prestige and reputation for impartiality that our courts of law have, because policy-making functions cannot be performed on the basis of evidence that would be admissible only in a court of law.
Part II of Schedule 2 sets out the rules concerning the N.I.R.C. Judging by the debate on the Courts Bill and the problems with regard to the administration of justice, I think that we shall provide another millstone around the neck of those trying to expedite the administration of justice.
I found it hypocritical yesterday when the Government accepted an Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), who asked for an Amendment to deal with expedition, because the N.I.R.C. will do exactly the opposite. Yet another charge on the public purse has been created by a Government pledged to cut down public expenditure. Moreover, the court—and let it not be forgotten that it has the sanction of imprisonment for contempt provided for in Schedule 2, Part II, which makes it clear that the statutes of the court is to be equivalent to the High Court and the Scottish Court of Session—is to be left with these ultimate powers.
There are matters here which will be debated in great detail at a later stage. I want only to deal with some specific matters in this context. One specific objection to the creation of the N.I.R.C. in this subsection is the basic one to reliance upon the enforcement machinery of a court of law rather than on the good will and co-operation that is so valid and vital to good industrial relations. The N.I.R.C. is so ill-equipped to perform functions which should properly be around a negotiating table, or performed by the Minister in conjunction with the C.I.R. and the parties concerned. It is


to be a policy-making body clothed in judicial robes charged with a rôle no less than that of re-shaping the whole of industrial relations in Britain.
So a court and not the Minister is to become the arbiter of deciding the development and the maintenance of what are termed "orderly industrial relations". It is to decide what is and what is not an unfair practice in the light of subsection (1); it is to decide whether an employer has complied with the provisions on disclosure. And the functions of the court in relation to Clauses 32 to 39—deciphering, interpreting and now, in this case, creating collective bargaining procedures, creating "agreement" where no agreement has ever been arrived at—make the mind boggle. This is not the rôle for a judicial body. The rôle of the N.I.R.C. in imposing unagreed procedures on parties which are not in agreement is perhaps the most astonishing function ever imposed on a British court of law. The absence of Jacobean costumes will not alter that fact one iota.
It was said yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that we have these things in the Sale of Goods Act. But, in that Act, the implied terms were laid down by Parliament and not by a court of law. They can be omitted by agreement and they are implied in a contract voluntarily and freely entered into by the parties concerned. So the analogy of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who appears to represent the Liberal Party from time to time in this Committee, certainly does not stand up to scrutiny.
There is also to be an appellate function in regard to registration procedures. The Solicitor-General was misleading in his speech on the Consultative Document, when he understandably refused to give way to me on four separate occasions. The appellate jurisdiction is in Clause 92. That function, in Donovan, was to be vested in a review body, with a chairman and two persons selected from a panel of trade unionists. That is to be found in paragraph 2658 of the Donovan Report. For the Solicitor-General to suggest that the N.I.R.C. in any way compares with the review body proposed by Donovan is a travesty, and it is understandable that he refused to give way to me on that occasion.
Paragraph 1110 of the Donovan Report is worth looking at because of what

it says with regard to enforcement. It said:
… propose only one completely new permanent institution—the Industrial Relations Commission. … The existing industrial tribunals will be transformed into labour tribunals whose jurisdiction will be extended to include disputes between individual employer and employee arising out of the contract of employment and also complaints by employees of unfair dismissal.
That is what Donovan favoured.
The powers set out in Clause 90 are so immense and so unjustifiable that the proposal can derive no legitimacy from the Donovan Report. It is a spurious monster, deriving from the arid legalistic mind of rigid and obstinate lawyers who are industrially illiterate, cloistered in the Temple, and without any experience of work on the shop floor. Clearly, they are far more familiar with—[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to intervene, let them do so in the normal way, not mutter from a sitting position.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman was not being very complimentary to his professional colleagues. Having listened to him for a little while, I have come to the conclusion that he must have written his speech in the Temple.

Mr. Rose: I have not been uncomplimentary to my colleagues. I have been uncomplimentary about a certain section of them, those who are cloistered in the Temple and who have had no experience of the shop floor. Such people are ill equipped to deal with the problems of industrial relations. There are many lawyers who have a great deal of experience on the shop floor, of arbitration and of industrial procedures. But anyone reading the evidence of the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society given to the Donovan Commission can only come to the conclusion that this was the creation of a particular group of lawyers cloistered in the Temple, in the serenity of the Temple, shall I say, instead of persons who have been in contact with the hurly-burly of the factory floor. A few months in a factory would be a better education for them than the period of tutelage which we all have to undergo.
By the way they are dealing with this problem and by the superstructure of the N.I.R.C. which they have created, they are undermining the whole voluntary


effort which is being made in industrial relations. The N.I.R.C. is vested with powers in relation to the so-called cooling-off period—which many of us might call a hotting-up period. It is strange that it has a function in relation to that, just as it is strange that it has a function in relation to strike ballots. What good can a court of law do in the administration of these matters? It has to make policy decisions, on the one hand, in the guise of judicial decisions, and this is rivalled only by its assumption of a role in relation to enforcement of agency shops, a proposal so ludicrous that responsible employers are throwing up their hands in horror at the prospect of the disruption which will be caused on the shop floor, particularly, say, in the engineering industry, by the N.I.R.C. deciding on matters such as the agency shop. It is like trying to treat a stomach ulcer with a large dose of arsenic, and it is about as relevant to industrial relations.
The Clause represents a constitutional change of such magnitude and significance that it is likely to cause turmoil in industry and do irreparable harm to our largely successful, though by no means unblemished, system of free collective bargaining and procedures. Already, the effects are being felt. Moderate trade union leaders, men like Alfred Allen of U.S.D.A.W., feel bound, because of this provision and hedging of it about by subsection (1), to resign from the Commission. Alfred Allen is a man who, with me, the other night, fought tooth and nail against suggestions coming from the audience that there should be industrial action against this Bill. A man like that has no trust in this Government, and, if such men can have no trust in the Government, what hope is there of their ever securing the voluntary co-operation of trade unionists?
Coercion will take the place of voluntary co-operation. That will be the inevitable result of imposing the N.I.R.C. upon the voluntary structure of the C.I.R. The N.I.R.C. is a body clothed with power to subpoena, to order the production of documents to demand evidence on oath. It is hardly an informal helpful body.
It is a court which will create as elaborate a body of case law as ever

filled the volumes of the All England Law Reports. With this kind of tediousness and legalism, conducted by the N.I.R.C.—and it is characteristic of a court of law rather than of a tribunal for industrial relations—we are to imitate in the field of industrial relations the sort of situation in the Chancery courts at the time of Charles Dickens.
2.15 a.m.
The position—and this was made clear in Answers from the Attorney-General to Parliamentary Questions which I tabled very recently—is that any Supreme Court judge may be nominated as a judge of the N.I.R.C., but he will not on such nomination cease to be a judge of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal, as the case may be. It was said that it is not possible at this stage to say precisely how many judges will be required. It is not possible to say at this stage what sort of salary will be paid to the judge and to the other members of the court. All we are told about this body is that it is capable of enforcing a code of law which has not yet been drafted, by judges who have not yet been appointed, at salaries not yet specified, and with complete uncertainty whether any legal aid will be available for those involved in procedures before it. It is astonishing that the Solicitor-General or the Secretary of State can come to this House and propose this Clause when these matters have not yet been decided upon. We are being asked to give a blank cheque to a body charged with deciphering almost undecipherable terms of the type in subsection (1) that we have been debating, which the Minister himself refused to undertake to define.
It is interesting to compare the N.I.R.C. with its equivalent in, say, Australia, with its equivalent State and Commonwealth Arbitration Commissions. Perhaps they are more relevant because of their trade union structure, which is more similar to our system than the system in the United States. They have created a rise in legalism and delay, with lawyers soaking up considerable fees. We are all aware of the astronomical figures of days lost in strikes in Australia, compared with our own.
Reference has been frequently made to Mr. Lowry and his study. He said that the legalistic nature of the procedure


in the United States, for determining which labour practices are unfair and how elections should be conducted, has led to massive case law to keep abreast of which, let alone to comprehend, must make life very difficult for those engaged in industrial relations in the United States. The same sentiment has been expressed to me by employers and managers at every meeting that I have addressed in the last few weeks, since I was pitch-forked onto this Front Bench, on the subject of industrial relations. So that the N.I.R.C., with its framework which is set out in subsection (1), will inject this new mass of legal technicalities into the already highly charged atmosphere of industrial relations, and the Bill with its attendant provocations, more particularly in the public sector, is already coming home to roost.
If we turn now to the industrial tribunals, they are now saddled with the job of interpreting subsection (1), and this alters the whole concept of what I have found to be largely expeditious and very fair tribunals. I have no complaint against the industrial tribunals in the exercise of their present functions—I could not have, because I have never lost a case before one. The new framework, with new quasi-criminal functions for the industrial tribunals, will render them unacceptable and will destroy the good work that they have done. So, again, we see the sabotage of what have been relatively successful and informal tribunals which have expeditiously dealt with problems arising from redundancy and contracts. The concept of the industrial tribunal is of a speedy, non-legally oriented and informal body. It already has to deal with a fair amount of case law, but the function of the industrial tribunal is now to be changed in such a way that trade unionists will no longer have the confidence in it which they had before. Certainly, so far as expedition is concerned, it will not be able to get through the three cases a day which it manages to get through now.
In a study undertaken by Mr. Charles McCormick from California on industrial tribunals, he says:
It may be questioned at the outset whether lawyers are really as neutral as might be hoped. By and large, their class origins, education, and professional practice will have brought them more in contact with employers than with ordinary employees.

I do not believe that this matters when all that they are dealing with are problems arising from a contract of employment or redundancy. But when they are saddled with the tasks which will arise in this Bill, when they are dealing with what is virtually criminal enforcement, however it is dressed up, against trade unionists, then it is time to take stock once again of industrial tribunals.
Even if this Committee is foolish enough to allow this monster to be created, there is hope. As the magazine the Engineer acknowledged on 29th October last year, and as I have found in speaking to many employers, practically the whole of this legislation depends on employers taking cases to court and the chances are that any intelligent employer will be reluctant to take people to court because of the bitterness this will cause subsequently in his factory. Recognising this, it is interesting that the C.B.I. came forward with a suggestion that prosecutions should rest with the Registrar of Trade Unions. The C.B.I. sees the dangers inherent in this. It is not the good employer who will use this procedure, but the bad employer. It is revealing that the C.B.I. should make this suggestion, but in the long term only one thing is certain to arise and that is a growing market for industrial lawyers.
We know that industrial relations are far better handled by those versed in such relations professionally rather than by labour lawyers, a fact acknowledged by Jack Lee, who otherwise is a supporter of legislation. We are now entering a time when we shall compare unfavourably even with the United States, where the National Labor Relations Board, while subject to the review of the Federal Court of Appeal, has powers vested in it similar to those of N.I.R.C., which are evidence of the origin of this proposal. At least that Board has specialised knowledge of industrial relations. This is not available to the new body here. The Commission is to have the powers vested in the National Labor Relations Board and also in the President of the United States as well as the powers of the Emergency Powers Act in this country.
All these powers are to be covered by the umbrella of the Clause. The serious consequence of this Clause, particularly this subjection, is to devalue the one body recommended by Donovan and set up


under the aegis of my right hon. Friend—the Commission for Industrial Relations. I do not want to bore the Committee by reading from the Employment and Productivity Gazette of February, 1969 [Interruption]. If I am boring the Committee it is only a small taste of what will bore those who will be saddled with the task of interpreting the sort of case that members of the Bar will have to put forward in defence of their clients.
When questioned in the Employment and Productivity Gazette George Woodcock said, of the C.I.R., that he regarded it as unquestionably the most important development in industrial relations in his lifetime. I think he knows a little more than does the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) about industrial relations. He said:
I find it difficult to imagine a case in which they will be desirable
—that is, the enforcement agencies in industrial relations—
or necessary. I shall be stimulated to prove that if it cannot he done by the C.I.R. through voluntary persuasive means then it certainly will not be done by legislation.
The emphasis in that interview with George Woodcock was on the word "voluntary", because he knows the experience in other countries, like Australia, like Ireland, like the United States, of this kind of legislation—soaring strikes and days lost through strikes, acknowledged in answers by the Secretary of State to Parliamentary Questions. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member says "Rubbish" will he please turn to HANSARD to see the replies given by the Secretary of State, and he will find that not only in every single year in the last five years have strikes in those three countries far exceeded days lost in strikes in this country but they have been 10 times as high as in this country, and the worst years were 1957, under the Government opposite, and this year, again under the Government opposite.

Mr. Coombs: The hon. Member makes many points by international comparisons which are not always relevant. There has been no international comparison in 1970. I do not believe there has been any for 1969. The number of stoppages in the United States for the year 1967–68 per 100,000 head of population is actually lower than in this country.

Mr. Rose: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the figure he will see that the number of days lost in stoppages in the United States alone last year exceeded all those—and figures have been given for last year, if only he would bother to look at HANSARD and the Employment and Productivity Gazette, where it is possible to read them before coming into the Committee to debate these matters—

Mr. Fidler: rose—

Mr. Rose: I do not want to give way because the hon. Member will have his chance to speak.

Mr. Fidler: Since the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to pay me the compliment of saying I know a little less about industrial relations than the eminent authority whom he quoted and since he referred to some of us on this side as having no knowledge of the factory floor, may I speak as one who has had experience over many years? I appreciate his reluctance to engage himself in learning the new law which this Bill will involve, but may I ask him a question? We have already here by a majority voted in the last two days for a great part of this Clause. We have accepted these guiding principles. Why do you not propose some substitution to balance them—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton): Order. I have not proposed anything.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman does not understand my argument. The argument inherent in this is that the imposition of the N.I.R.C. upon the C.I.R. will destroy all the value of that body and the imposition of a new task upon the industrial tribunal will destroy its acceptability. This is what the hon. Gentleman does not understand.
I want to come to a conclusion and I want to ask the Solicitor-General a very pertinent question. That is the question of the overlapping jurisdiction. What will happen, for example, if the decision to impose an agency shop by the N.I.R.C., following a dispute, leads to action in the court? A curious situation may arise, where both may be involved, but the N.I.R.C. cannot deal with it. Shall we now have a third court to decide the jurisdiction of the various sections of the High Court in the middle of this jungle


which has been created since the Registrar was introduced? The Registrar has the final and ultimate weapon of deregistration, a weapon that was used against the Australian building workers and resulted in a new break-away. It will cause fragmentation and produce a system of State licensing of trade unions contrary to the I.L.O. Convention and the European Social Charter.
The whole atmosphere of industrial relations will be poisoned by litigation, deregistration and conflict in which the scales are carefully weighted in favour of one party. The departure into the murky wilderness of N.I.R.C. and legalism happily will not be for 40 years but for four years This proposal will be consigned to oblivion and replaced by procedures of machinery consistent with the needs of the 1970s. Legal combat is no substitute for peace in industrial relations.

2.30 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I do not intend to detain the Committee for as long as did the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). In substance his speech covered most of the ground covered by many speeches on Second Reading and a good deal of ground beyond that. His general denunciation of Clause 1(2) of the Bill, founded on the proposition that it represents an injection of legalism from some cloistered source tainted by Americanism, is wholly without foundation.
The analysis underlying the thinking of my right hon. and hon. Friends which is embodied in this legislation has gone on over many years. It has ranged outside the Temple and far outside this country and the United States. It spans the years of work of the Donovan Commission and has taken account of the proposals of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) during their period in office. In seeking to set that on one side he overlooks all the thinking underlying the proposals contained in "In Place of Strife".
When the hon. Gentleman says that our strike record is of such a quality as to entitle us to reject experience from countries overseas and learning where we can around the world, he overlooks the central proposition contained in "In Place of Strife", that Britain's strike records are of a different quality and that

compared with other countries we have a large number of strikes in relation to our work force. It simply is not effective to set aside lessons which can be learned from other parts of the world—

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is not being fair in dealing with strikes. In paragraph 368 the Donovan Commission said that we have a large number of unofficial strikes over a short period but that official strikes are about 12 times longer and greater than unofficial strikes.

The Solicitor-General: Donovan said that unofficial unconstitutional strikes were a serious problem peculiar to this country which urgently required solution. This contrasts with the situation in some other countries where strikes occur infrequently, predictably and in a situation in which people can plan for their occurrence. Because of that diagnosis, the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends brought forward their own proposals. It smacks of astonishing hypocrisy and naivety for the hon. Gentleman to get up and quote Lord Robens and neglect to mention the background of himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
He said that Lord Robens seeks to reject the kind of solutions which we advance in this legislation because he rejects the icy iron precision of the law. If one analyses the memorial address to which the hon. Gentleman referred, one sees that Lord Robens no more rejects the icy, iron precision of the law than did the right hon. Lady in her own proposals introduced less than two years ago.

Mrs. Castle: indicated dissent.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady may shake her head as much as she likes, but she cannot escape from the central fact that the proposals which she advanced in "In Place of Strife" involved substantial intervention by the law with precision on many points.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot escape from the fact that in "In Place of Strife" we deliberately rejected the framework of law which hon. and learned Gentlemen are introducing in this Bill. As we go through the Bill, he will find it increasingly impossible to trot out his fig leaf behind which he is trying to hide.

The Solicitor-General: I trot out no fig leaf. I would not begin to swap fig leaves with the right hon. Lady this morning. It simply will not wash for her to asssert here that there was no approach to legalism in her own proposals. We are now looking at whether the principles which the Committee has been debating for some time should be regarded as guiding principles for the Secretary of State, the Commission, the Registrar, and the National Industrial Relations Court and the Industrial Tribunals.
What we find in "In Place of Strife" is not merely the independent review body that was proposed by Donovan. We find there the industrial board. What was that industrial board supposed to do? That board, alongside the Registrar proposed in "In Place of Strife", is there to enforce legalism.

Mrs. Castle: rose—

The Solicitor-General: May I finish the sentence and I will give way? The industrial board was the right hon. Lady's equivalent to the National Industrial Relations Court. It was to determine whether people had been rightly or fairly treated by trade unions in expulsion or non-admission; it was to determine the penalties to be imposed on unions using coercive action in recognition strikes; and it was to determine penalties imposed on workers in the cooling-off period. The right hon. Lady may regret she ever uttered this, but she cannot ignore the implications of what she did.

Mrs. Castle: I regret that the Solicitor-General, who is a man of considerable intelligence, should so debase the level of political dishonesty and debate as to distort the facts, as he has attempted to do and will continue to do so as long as he can get away with it. He knows perfectly well that the independent review body, which Donovan recommended and which was included in "In Place of Strife", had nothing to do with the national industrial relations court that my hon. Friend has described to the house. Its functions had nothing to do with the legal framework of this Bill.
I will make a deal with the Solicitor-General. Since he claims that his framework of law is identical with what was proposed in "In Place of Strife", I suggest that if as we go through the

Bill, we find any proposal that was not in "In Place of Strife", he should withdraw his proposal. If he will agree to that, there will be none of this Bill left.

Mr. Fidler: On a point of order. I rather thought that the Solicitor-General was being accused of political dishonesty. Is that in order?

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): That was not the hearing of the Chair.

The Solicitor-General: I do not want to go over the ground again. I merely want, as briefly as I can, to remind the Committee of the summary contained in "In Place of Strife" of the right hon. Lady's proposals:
A new Industrial Board will be responsible for dealing with cases under the provisions proposed in paragraph 60. …
—which deals with coercive action and recognition situations—
as well as with those referred to in paragraphs 93–98 ('conciliation pause' and ballots), 109 (registration) and 115–116 (complaints against trade unions by individuals). …
There may he room for discussion about scale and detail in later parts of the Bill, but there is no room for argument about the principle of extensive intervention by agencies which was at the heart of her proposals, just as it is at the heartland of this legislation, and just as, even with Lord Roben's disdain for the icy iron precision of the law, his own pet proposals for removal of protection of the 1906 Act from unofficial strikers and for the withdrawal of picketing rights for unofficial strikes cannot be called in aid because they both involve the extension of the rule of law, icy iron or not. So it is wrong to take the view that there is a great distinction of principle about which any great heat can legitimately be generated. It is equally wrong that the National Industrial Relations Court or any of the agencies foreshadowed here are to be policy-making bodies in any judical form.
The proposals discussed in the last debate identifying industrial practices are not at large. They are defined. The proposals for disclosure of information are defined almost along the same lines as those contained in the right hon. Lady's Bill.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, referred to the rôle of the


National Industrial Relations Court in creating agreements, but there is no rôle for the Court in creating agreements. In so far as the parties cannot arrive at an agreement, the Commission could do that. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) pointed out, many statutes contain model clauses which apply in many situations, and the 1959 Act applies to employers the terms of agreements to which they have not been parties at all, to the advantage of trade unions, so there is nothing novel about that. Donovan argued that that which is effective for substantive agreements can equally be effective for procedural agreements along the lines which we have suggested.
I do not propose to detain the Committee much longer in discussing this frontal attack on the heartland of the Bill. We are trying to lay the foundations of order, fairness and reasonableness to be administered by the new agencies. It is a reasonable objective. It is a fulfilment of an aspiration of Sidney Webb a long time ago when he said—it is not an unworthy proposition—that he thought the time would one day come when the nation should no longer leave the resolution of conflicts of this kind in industry to the arbitrament of private warfare. He was looking at the Australian example. We do not seek to follow that, but we do not think that it is an unworthy objective. We ask the Committee to

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[2.47 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ellis, Tom


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
English, Michael


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Evans, Fred


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Stanley
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, Norman
Concannon, J. D.
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Barnes, Michael
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Joel
Crawshaw, Richard
Foley, Maurice


Beaney, Alan
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ford, Ben


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Forrester, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam
Freeson, Reginald


Bishop, E. S.
Davidson, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Garrett, W. E.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ginsburg, David


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Golding, John


Bradley, Tom
Deakins, Eric
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Delargy, H. J.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Brwon, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Hamling, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Duffy, A. E. P.



Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Dunnett, Jack
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Eadie, Alex
Heffer, Eric S.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hilton, W. S.

reject the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman moved—and moved with a curious sense of shame about the value of the law in our society. I do not stand here to defend every aspect of our legal system. I count myself a reformer of our legal institutions, but I count myself also as someone who has respected the rôle that the law, and the rule of law, can play in many spheres, including—not all my hon. Friends would agree about this—race relations. Just as I am prepared to argue the case for the reform of legal institutions, so, from this side of the House and from many parts of the country, people are arguing increasingly the case for the reform of the institutions through which our industrial relations are conducted.

2.45 a.m.

As part of that reform there is a legitimate rôle for the law to play. I have no shame in saying that. It is not wrong to say that institutions of this kind, handled in accordance with the principles which we are discussing by courts and agencies which are industrially sophisticated, have a major rôle to play in reforming our institutions to restore the dynamic which is essential to the restoration of prosperity to this country.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 214. Noes 250.

Horain, John
Marks, Kenneth
Roper, John


Huckfield, Leslie
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mendelson, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hunter, Adam
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Janner, Greville
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Sillars, James


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morgan, Elystan (cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


John, Brynmor
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Moyle, Roland
Spearing, Nigel


Johnson, walter (Derby, S.)
Mulley, Rt, Hn. Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Murray, Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Malley, Brian
Strang, Gavin


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oram, Bert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kaufman, Gerald
Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley
Taverne, Dick


Kinnock, Neil
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Lambie, David
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Latham, Arthur
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tinn, James


Lawson, George
Pavitt, Laurie
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Varley, Eric G.


Leonard, Dick
Pendry, Tom
Wainwright, Edwin


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pentland, Norman
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Prescott, John
Wallace, George


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Watkings, David


McBride, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)
Wellbeloved, James


McCann, John
Probert, Arthur
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


McCartney, Hugh
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Whitehead, Phillip


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mackie, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Conventry, S.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)



McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Gorst, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cockeram, Eric
Gower, Raymond


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Coombs, Derek
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Astor, John
Cooper, A. E.
Gray, Hamish


Atkins, Humphrey
Cormack, Patrick
Green, Alan


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Critchley, Julian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Curran, Charles
Grylls, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gummer, Selwyn


Batsford, Brian
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dean, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Benyon, W.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Biffen, John
Dykes, Hugh
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hastings, Stephen


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Havers, Michael


Body, Richard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hawkins, Paul


Boscawen, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Hayhoe, Barney


Bossom, Sir Clive
Farr, John
Heseltine, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Fell, Anthony
Hicks, Robert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Higgins, Terence L.


Braine, Bernard
Fidler, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Holland, Philip


Brewis, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Holt, Miss Mary


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hordern, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fortescue, Tim
Hornby, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fowler, Norman
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bryan, Paul
Fox, Marcus
Howell, David (Guildford)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'ffrd &amp; Stone)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Carlisle, Mark
Fry, peter
Hunt, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Chapman, Sydney
Gibson-Watt, David
Iremonger, T. L.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
James, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhart, Philip
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodhew, Victor
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)







Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Jopling, Michael
Mudd, David
Soref, Harold


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Spence, John


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Neave, Airey
Sproat, Iain


Kershaw, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stainton, Keith


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Normanton, Tom
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Kinsey, J. R.
Nott, John
Stodard, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Kirk, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stokes, John


Knox, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sutcliffe, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Longden, Gilbert
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Loveridge, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Tebbit, Norman


MacArthur, Ian
Pounder, Rafton
Temple, John M.


McCrindle, R. A.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


McLaren, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Prior Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tilney, John


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McNair-wilson, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Trew, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Raison, Timothy
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maddan, Martin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Madel, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maginnis, John E.
Redmond, Robert
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Marten, Neil
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Marther, Carol
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wall, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Moate, Roger
Rost, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Molyneaux, James
Royle, Anthony
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Money, Ernie
Russell, Sir Ronald
Woodnutt, Mark


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott, Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Younger, Hn. George


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Clapham)



More, Jasper
Simeons, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Amendment No. 353 proposed: In page 2, line 6, after 'State', insert 'and'.—[Mrs. Castle.]

Amendment negatived.

Amendment No. 346 proposed: In page 2, line 10, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 14.—[Mrs. Castle.]

Amendment negatived.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[2.59 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Robert
Churchill, W. S.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bowden, Andrew
Clegg, Walter


Astor, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cockeram, Eric


Atkins, Humphrey
Braine, Bernard
Coombs, Derek


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bray, Ronald
Cooper, A. E.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brewis, John
Cormack, Patrick


Balniel, Lord
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Critchley, Julian


Batsford, Brian
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Curran, Charles


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Benyon, W.
Bryan, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dean, Paul


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Blaker, Peter
Chapman, Sydney
Dykes, Hugh


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Eden, Sir John


Body, Richard
Chichester-Clark, R.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill":—

The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 214.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kirk, Peter
Redmond, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Farr, John
Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fidler, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fowler, Norman
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fox, Marcus
MacArthur, Ian
Rost, Peter


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McCrindle, R. A.
Royle, Anthony


Fry, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Russell, Sir Ronald


Galbraith Hn. T. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott, Nicholas


Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Simeons, Charles


Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gorst, John
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Soref, Harold


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray
Spence, John


Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sproat, Iain


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stokes, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James
Sutcliffe, John


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Money, Ernie
Tapsell, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Havers, Michael
More, Jasper
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tebbit, Norman


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Temple, John M.


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar
Tilney, John



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Neave, Airey
Trew, Peter


Holland, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tugendhat, Christopher


Holt, Miss Mary
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hornby, Richard
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wall, Patrick


Howell, David (Guildford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Warren, Kenneth


Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Paisley, Mr. Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pardoe, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


James, David
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival, Ian
Wilkinson, John


Jessel, Toby
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodnutt, Mark


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Younger, Hn. George


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred



Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Tom
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Concannon, J. D.


Barnett, Joel
Buchan, Norman
Conlan, Bernard


Beaney, Alan
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)







Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Prescott, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, William (Rugby)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, H. J.
Kaufman, Gerald
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Richard, Ivor


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamond, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br's'n &amp; R'dnor)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roper, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Ellis, Tom
Lewis Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Foley, Maurice
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Garratt, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Strang, Gavin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Meacher, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Varley, Eric G.


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Edwin


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ail Saints)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wallace, George


Hilton, W. S.
Murray, Ronald King
Watkins, David


Horam, John
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)



Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. John Golding and


John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

CODE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PRACTICE

Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move, Amendment No. 388 in page 2, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 17 and insert:
'appointed day on which this Act shall come into operation'

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to consider

at the same time the following Amendments:
No. 27 in page 2, line 16, leave out 'one year' and insert 'two years'.
No. 389 in line 16, leave out 'one year' and insert 'three months'.
No. 390 in line 16, leave out 'one year' and insert 'six months'.
No. 40 in Clause 3, page 2, line 31, leave out 'one year' and insert 'two years'.

Mr. Pardoe: The Amendment concerns the Code of Practice. I am aware that many hon. Members of the Committee will not be very concerned about that


They oppose the Bill in its entirety and the whole philosophy behind it. I take a different position. I do not oppose the Bill in its entirety, as I have already made clear in the debate on the Consultative Document. I welcome it as the first attempt to reorganise the chaos of our industrial relations. I want to make it work and to make it relevant and effective.
Unfortunately, as the Bill stands, without the Code of Practice, it has little of a radical or reforming nature. It could be that this reform and radicalism will come in the code of industrial relations practice. It could be that when the code finally emerges after the period of gestation, it will be merely a list of biased platitudes and will never be possible to put it into effect. I hope very much that that will not be so and that the code will be relevant to the problems of industrial relations, and I hope that it will probably be the most significant part of the whole of this process of legislation. We know very little of what it will contain, and we are being asked to accept an undisclosed code in the Bill.
What we are told about the code in the Bill is extremely sketchy. But we are told that although it will not be enforceable in law, nevertheless it will have to be taken into account by the Industrial Court or by an Industrial Tribunal, and that when it has been taken into account it can be used in determining the question, and presumably even determining the level of compensation if it is relevant to that.
We are told more in the Consultative Document about the code than we are told in the Bill. In the Consultative Document, on page 2, paragraph 13, section b, we are told that its purpose is:
to encourage the establishment … of effective means of communication, including the provision of information, between management and workers at all levels so as to involve them more fully in the operations of their firms.
I echo those words and welcome them. That is the nub of the whole problem.
If one considers the suggestion that the code of industrial practice will set out ideas for better communications between employees and employers, one realises that this could be an extremely contentious issue. We have already dis-

cussed this to some extent on a previous Amendment, but if we are being asked to accept that this code will set out the practice by which communications can be bettered in industry on the shop floor, we ought to know something about it. What is more, the Bill should not come into force until we have that code printed and before us.
Secondly, the Consultative Document states that the code will set out certain provisions for guiding employers and employees in the provision of information. Again, this will be an extremely contentious issue, both on communications and information, and there will be enormous argument between employers and employees, and between trade unions and employers' federations, about how much information should be divulged. All this will have to be tied up in the Code of Practice.
The code could be the most relevant part of the whole Bill to the whole problem in industry. I regret that without it the Bill concentrates on the regulation of relationships between trade unions and employers' associations, which will at best have only a marginal effect on industrial unrest and productivity, and which ignores almost completely the establishment of a constitutional relationship between employers and employees within individual companies, which is considered by those experienced in industry to be the key factor in improving our industrial relations. Therefore, the code should be the most important part of the Bill, but we do not have it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is it?"]. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask that. I hope that we can have it much earlier than we are promised it in the Bill. I hope that we can have it before the Bill becomes law. I should like it now that we are deliberating upon the early stages of the Bill. At least we should have it before the Bill becomes law.
We have tabled two further Amendments. In case the Government are not prepared to accept that somewhat radical suggestion, we offer them a three months' or six months' option so that they can buy forward.
3.15 a.m.
Much of the Bill depends on the code, and it is very necessary that we should


have it at an early opportunity. I hope that when this debate is answered we can also have some idea of what the code will contain. What will it say about communications on the shopfloor? Might it, for instance, provide for the setting up of works councils in firms? These are vital to the improvement of communications within the firm. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to give more details of what is likely to be in the code. I hope that he may also even try to explain the reason for the delay in its publication. Is it that the Government wish the Bill to stand for 12 months and to try to clear up its inadequacies, and perhaps even the mess created by it, in that strange document, the code.
If they have any confidence in the ability of the code to do anything at all for our industrial relations, if it is not to be simply a list of pious platitudes, there is no reason why we should not have a draft code to study now, or at least before the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Chairman, three weeks before Christmas the previous Speaker, Dr. King, ruled that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) had contravened a well-established practice of the House that the vote must follow the voice. We have on the Order Paper several Amendments by the Liberals, of whom only one is present. Is it in order for Liberal Members to put their names to Amendments and then not bother to turn up to vote for them? Should not their names be deleted from the Amendments in the same way as Mr. Speaker ruled that our names should be deleted from the Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill?

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but he probably knows that it is not out of order to do what he has complained about.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) gives a general welcome to the efforts behind the Bill. Rightly, he has raised questions about the Code of Practice because it is a relevant part of the Bill and is dealt with in Clause 2. In

effect, he asks, "How can the Bill become law without the Code of Practice?"
I make it clear that the Government see the code as a valuable background to the operation of promoting good industrial relations, as specified in Clause 1. It is not essential in the short term in order to enable the Bill to become law to have a Code of Practice. Ideally perhaps it should be ready, and I shall explain when we expect it.
The code envisaged by the Bill provides a long-term climate and an additional clarification of good industrial relations. Largely, I believe, it will become an educative document. As we heard in the long debates on Clause 1, there are a number of guiding principles for those concerned with this legislation and these will be backed up by the Code of Practice in Clause 2, which says, relating to the preparation and drafting of the code, that it shall contain
… such practical guidance as in the opinion of the Secretary of State would be helpful …
"Practical guidance" is the operative part of this provision, and the Bill can stand on its own, certainly initially, without the code actually being ready and published. Clause 3 provides that the Secretary of State has a duty to lay a draft of the code before Parliament, and it will be subject to approval or rejection by Parliament.
I turn now to the legal part of the code. It will not be possible for anyone to bring an action on the ground that the provisions of the code have been broken. Actions will have to be based on the provisions about unfair industrial practices. Any of these breaches are the ones which will be liable to civil action in the courts. The code will not and cannot lay down precise rules to cover any and every set of circumstances. In the last resort, it will be for the courts to interpret the differences of views between the parties on particular points, having regard to any general provisions of the code which may be relevant.
Indeed, the courts are always subject to that type of interpretation. Failure to observe the code will not in itself lead to any particular proceedings, but in any proceedings under the Bill it will have much the same force as the Highway Code, for instance, in relation to the Road Traffic Acts. The Road Traffic Acts


came into operation a long time before the Highway Code was drafted and refined, but that did not prevent civil actions taking place following from road accidents, and I imagine that the law was further clarified by having the Highway Code, which is a most valuable institution in relation to the Road Traffic Acts.

Mr. Iremonger: What about complaints for damages which have been suffered? Will it be possible to bring a complaint in respect of a breach of the code?

Mr. Dudley Smith: Not directly. It is specified in the Bill that the Industrial Court will take account of circumstances, on one side or the other, where it is alleged that there has not been compliance with the code. It is not a civil offence in itself not to comply with the code but it can be taken into account in deciding other particular issues. It forms an important and valuable background. The equation with the Highway Code, although these are entirely separate things, is the best illustration I can give to show how a previous code has come into being and has worked and is applied successfully in civil litigation.
The Amendment, which was moved so courteously by the hon. Gentleman, is unacceptable, I am afraid, because there will not be any one day on which the Bill becomes operative. Clause 150(2) provides that different days may be appointed for the implementation of provisions of the Bill. This, of course, is very important. It would, perhaps, be wrong for the whole Bill to come into operation simultaneously, and a good deal of work will have to be done. For example, it will become necessary to set up the machinery for dealing with unfair industrial practices before bringing into effect those Clauses which provide for the presentation of complaints about unfair industrial practices. One has to take that into account, too.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would give a good deal of detail about the Code of Practice. I cannot do so tonight. It will cover a wide area. As he knows, my right hon. Friend will have consultations about it, and it would be premature to anticipate exactly what the

provisions will be. For instance, matters like management rights, the responsibility of management towards employees, the rôle of the supervisor, the relationship of management with trade unions, those facilities which management should provide to help unions in representing employees, the rôle of the trade unions, their rights, responsibilities and functions, collective agreements and guide lines on establishing effective agreements, dismissals and the establishment of the right of employees to know why they are being dismissed, joint consultations—in fact, a comprehensive survey intended to be genuinely helpful to both sides of industry will be carried out.
As we know, the great advantage of this is that it will not be sacrosanct for ever more but it can be revised in due course, again subject to the approval of Parliament.

Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman spoke of his right hon. Friend having consultations about the Code of Practice. Whom will he consult, and for how long?

Mr. Dudley Smith: That will come up on a later Amendment, but perhaps I could give the short answer now: everybody who would like to may make representations. My right hon. Friend was very liberal when the Bill was originally published in the form of the Consultative Document, and he invited comments from all sections of society. Some responded, and some did not. Certainly, it is his intention on the Code of Practice seriously to consider all bona fide representations which are made to him. There is no question of trying to favour one group against another. He will welcome this information when it comes forward.
I can tell the Committee that work is now in progress on the draft of the code, but a great deal remains to be done. Our current aim is to have the draft of the document available in the spring and to present the code to Parliament probably by the autumn. We cannot be absolutely final about that, and I should be misleading the Committee if I tried to be more definite.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman means 1971 or 1972?

Mr. Dudley Smith: This year. I appreciate the aim of the other Amendments put down by the Liberal Party.


There would be too much restriction if we accepted them. With a little more time for preparation, and with the right type of consultation as a result, it is likely to be a better document. I stress that my right hon. Friend is most anxious to issue the Code of Practice as soon as possible. His aim is to prepare it and present it to Parliament before the time allowed in the Bill, that is, a year from the date of its coming into operation. We should be surprised and disappointed if we did not achieve it this year, 1971. We all realise the importance of speed in this matter, and we shall not drag our feet.
I know that there is a genuine doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind, but I hope that he will not wish to press his Amendment and will accept our assurances that we are pressing matters forward in good faith and with the utmost speed.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Atkinson: The assurances given by the Minister are not quite good enough in the circumstances, because timing is essential here. The more one reads the Bill, the more one discovers that the Registrar will be absolutely dependent upon this Code of Practice for determining whether he is prepared to accept rule books lodged with him by various trade unions.
As I understand it, the procedure will be that each trade union will be automatically registered once this Bill becomes law, and that preliminary registration will remain for some three months. At the end of that three months period, the Registrar will have to make some sort of recommendations to the various trade unions, telling them how to amend their rule books to make them comply with what I understand to be the Code of Practice. This will determine the whole question whether unions will register and under what conditions they will register, so that this question of the time scale is so important.
I should like to pose one or two questions about the urgency which the Government attach to getting the Bill. One assumes that the decision to bring the Bill on to the Floor of the House means that the Government are looking to completion of it in, say, twelve months from this March. Perhaps March, 1972, would be a rough guess, on the basis of 15

hours per Clause. I do not know whether the Leader of the House would like to consider whether he is anxious to get the Bill this year, or whether it is the Government's intention to use the guillotine method and various other undemocratic practices in order to speed up the whole proceedings. The point put to us by the Minister is that he is hoping to accelerate the completion of this Code of Practice, the Highway Code as he called it—

Mr. Dudley Smith: I did not call it a Highway Code. I gave the Highway Code as an illustration of the type of background to an Act of Parliament that the code of practice will be.

Mr. Atkinson: I am not going into details about the analogy with the Highway Code. The Minister was suggesting that it was the Government's intention to accelerate the completion of this Code of Practice. What we now need is some assurance as to when we shall start to see the terms, the practice, because the Registrar has nothing else to guide him on the question of rules. There is nothing in the Bill which spells out in great detail what are the terms for the Registrar in regard to how the rule books of the trade unions are to be remoulded or reconsidered, and before very long we ought to have some idea of what will be contained in the code.
Therefore, I suggest that the Minister's reply is not good enough. It is very important that we understand the content of the code, and I ask that the Government should begin to prepare some sort of preliminary draft of what they are thinking at the moment. Let us have a Green, a Blue or, preferably, a White Paper, so that we can see the terms and judge some of the other Clauses in the light of that knowledge.

The Solicitor-General: On the question of registration, the provisions are already fully set out in Clauses 63 and 64 and Schedule 3. It is not visualised that the code will be adding substantially to these provisions because they are set out in great detail. The code is primarily concerned to give guidance to those who will be concerned with day-to-day conduct of industrial relations within industry and not with the point with which the hon. Member is dealing.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman because he has cleared up one or two matters. If we can take it that the two Clauses mentioned and Schedule 3 contain the whole of the recommendations to be made to the Registrar when he is appointed and that the changes will be within the terms of those Clauses and that Schedule, then our knowledge is increased, and with it our fears. We shall therefore intensify our arguments when we come to these parts of the Bill. On that basis we can return to the subject later, presumably somewhere near the end of July on the Minister's timetable.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has got it wrong. I do not see why we should hurry this. I should like to see it put off for a couple of years to give the Minister time to consult these hundreds of thousands of trade unionists who are supposed to be in favour of the Bill. If these people are to be consulted, then two years may not be enough. If two years is allowed to go by, it will give the Government time to think again and they might realise that they had made a mistake and withdraw the Bill.
My hon. Friend is wrong to hurry the Bill. He is backing the Liberals who are saying, "Do it quickly". I say, "Do not do it quickly, take time over it". Let the trade unionists have an opportunity of discussing it, and if two years is not enough, let us make it five years. Then we could have a General Election and the people could decide whether they wanted it.

Mr. Pardoe: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving us a little more information, although not by any means enough, about what is to be in the code. I should like him to reconsider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) that we should have some kind of coloured Paper, either white with green edges or white all over. Having said that I do not think that it will entirely surprise hon. Members if I say that I do not intend to press the Amendment.
I should like to answer a question raised why my hon. and right hon. Friends were not here to support this Amendment. I, and most other people in the country, would regard their absence at

this hour in the morning as being eminently sensible. I shall be the only member of the Liberal Party who will be thought to be completely crackers, being here at this time of the morning. The whole of the country regards this kind of exercise as mad and if the two Front Benches would get together in a reasonably civilised and democratic manner they could stop this nonsense and have this Bill debated without staying up all night. It would be much more democratic if they did.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, Amendment No. 355, in page 2, line 17, leave out from 'practice' to end of line 19 and insert:
'which has been agreed with organisations of employers and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress'.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): With this Amendment we take the following Amendments:
No. 28, in page 2, line 17, after 'Act', insert:
'to discuss with the Trades Union Congress, and the Confederation of British Industry to enable him'.
No. 29, in page 2, line 17, after 'to', insert:
'discuss with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry and with their assistance and advice'.
No. 36, in page 2, line 27, after 'may', insert:
'after discussion and agreement with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry'.
No. 37, in page 2, line 27, after 'may' insert:
'after full discussions with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry'.
No. 356, in page 2, line 27, after 'may', insert:
'in agreement with organisations of employers and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress'.
No. 395, in page 2, line 27, after 'may', insert:
'on his own initiative or on the request from a trade union, the Trades Union Congress or the Confederation of British Industry'.
No. 49, in Clause 3, page 2, line 40, after 'shall' insert:
'first discuss same with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry and'.


No. 359, in page 2, line 40, after 'shall', insert:
'after consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry'.
No. 50, in page 2, line 42, after second 'the', insert:
'Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry and the'.
No. 51, in page 3, line 2, after 'the', insert:
'Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry and'.

Mrs. Castle: I must say that I thought the outburst of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was unwarranted in view of the fact that he is the only Member who has proposed an Amendment which he did not intend to press to a vote. If we are talking about wasting the time of the Committee, I suggest that he concentrates his attention on that kind of activity. When we in this party put down Amendments we have the very strongest desire to see them carried.

Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but she is talking the most arrant nonsense. She knows perfectly well that it is a normal procedure to put down exploratory Amendments. She has been a party to such Amendments to hundreds of Bills. I hope that she will have the good sense to withdraw that stupid remark.

Mrs. Castle: No. I certainly will not. I have no intention of withdrawing that highly apposite remark, for the simple reason that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the conduct of the Bill and why we are here at this hour of the morning. I do not like being here at this hour any more than he does, but I strongly resent the suggestion that in some way we could avoid it by talks across the Table. It has been a characteristic of our discussions on this Bill so far that there has been no waste of time by anybody, on either side of the Committee. There have been a lot of speeches from both sides, because there have been a lot of very important points. It would not have been possible to curtail discussion without curtailing essential examination of the Bill.
I am about to ask the Committee to accept an Amendment which is very important indeed. I would suggest, with-

out exaggeration, that it is one of the most important Amendments we shall be discussing. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North said some of us do not like the Code of Practice. We in this party certainly do not like this Code of Practice. We do not like its scope; we do not like the legal uses or semi-legal uses to which it is going to be put; and we do not like its authorship. Certainly we do not think expediting its coming into operation will contribute anything to the improvement of industrial relations. That is why we had no sympathy with the hon. Member's last Amendment.
What we are by this Amendment seeking to do is to remedy one of the most extraordinary things about this Code of Practice. We have been told—and we have spent a lot of time discussing this—that the purpose of the Bill and the guiding principles is to promote good industrial relations practice, and that we need to have this Code of Practice issued so as to enable all of us to reach the desirable goal of good industrial relations practice.
3.45 a.m.
If such a code of industrial relations practice is to work, it must be based on agreement with the T.U.C. and representatives of employers' organisations. They are the people who run the industrial relations. It is unprecedented that in a Bill dealing with industrial relations, or with industry in any form, there is no word about the need for the Government to consult both sides of industry. There was no word in the Consultative Document either. There was a lot about the trade unions and what the Government would do about the trade unions, to the trade unions and against the trade unions, but not a word about discussion, consultation or dialogue by the Government with the trade union movement.
In reply to the previous debate the Under-Secretary said that there would be consultations with absolutely everybody who cared to write in and ask for them. I am sorry, but that is not a good enough guarantee for us, when we have so clearly in our minds that the Secretary of State failed to consult the T.U.C. over the initiation of the Bill. That again is unprecedented. He had no consultation because he took the high-handed line that it was only worth while the T.U.C.'s talking to him about the Bill, which


had such far-reaching effects on its future, if the T.U.C. began by accepting his principles and discussed only their shape. No self-respecting consultee would agree to those terms, and we are, therefore, discussing a Bill which the Government have not discussed with the T.U.C.
We are told that we are to have this Code of Practice covering all aspects of industrial relations, but nowhere in the Bill is there any indication that there will be consultation with the T.U.C. or the employers. This is a supreme example of the blind leading the blind. The Government, without any commitment to accept industry's views, will tell industry what it should do to put things right. This shows how ill-equipped the Government are to lay down principles for anybody. Anyone with experience knows that consultation is at the heart of good industrial relations and that consent is at the heart of good consultation and is what consultation should seek to achieve.
The Government should have more humility. The first people to get cracking on an examination of the Donovan report were the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. who, when the Government were still examining the report, were getting together to discuss what practical steps they could take by agreement to improve the defects indicated in the Donovan Report. It is extraordinary that at this hour of the morning here we are discussing a Code of Practice in relation to which we are told "There will be consultation with anybody who cares to write in." What an approach! Central to the Government's whole attitude should have been the priority of getting both sides of industry into consultation and then presenting to the House a Code of Practice on which the two sides of industry had agreed.
The Government came into office facing a number of economic problems, but certainly with a favourable balance of payments base from which to set out to win the co-operation of the unions and of the employers in tackling the problem of inflation. It was a very great opportunity and the Government will probably come to regret that they threw it away so lightheartedly. Instead of going out of their way as a priority to bring both sides of industry together and try to win

their co-operation, the first act of the Government was to throw down the gauntlet to the trade union movement by saying that a priority measure would be the publication of this Bill. And they then added further insult by snubbing the T.U.C. and being arrogant to the trade unions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—The Chancellor of the Exchequer never opens his mouth without blaming all the economic ills on the trade union movement and on their wage demands.
The T.U.C. submitted a document to "Neddy" only a short time ago which said that the trade union movement does not like runaway inflation any more than anybody else does, and the T.U.C. said it had proposals to put forward on which agreement might eventually be reached. That was merely answered by a cold douche in the face. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not wait to go into print as quickly as possible to denounce the document as a purely inflationary formula. There has been this long catalogue of arrogance towards the trade union movement.
Therefore, in that context to talk about a Code of Practice as promoting good industrial relations is to make a mockery of this whole paraphernalia of legislation. We face a situation in which this Bill is to be imposed on the trade union movement, a movement which has complained bitterly because it has never been given the chance to convince the Government that one of their precious principles might be wrong. The trade unions have been told that they must take it or leave it and that the Government will slap down the unions if they get difficult.
Now we are to have a Code of Practice which is to be imposed on industry without its agreement. How far are the Government trying to put back the clock? Do they not realize that in this day and age one can govern only by consent, not by coercion? One will get people to operate good industrial relations practice if in the first place one wins their agreement. In the Amendment we are coming to the Government's rescue.

Mr. John Page: Just as an example, when the right hon. Lady produced her Bill just before the election, was there agreement between the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. on the terms of the Bill?

Mrs. Castle: No. I am not asking that. It would be absurd to ask that the Government should get the agreement of the T.U.C. on its policies. We could never get any Parliamentary government that way.
I am saying that a Code of Practice, a different thing, dealing with all these principles—fine-sounding principles which all reasonable people in industry should observe—should be agreed with both sides. There is not even a mention in the Bill of the need to consult both sides, in contradistinction to my Bill which had a different Code of Practice related purely to disclosure of information and which was not linked, as is this, with all sorts of sanctions and regulatory issues.
Even with my Code of Practice, limited, as it was, to disclosure of information by employers, it laid down that it should be prepared by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the General Council and the C.B.I. There is not a breath of a word of anything similar in the Consultative Document or this Bill.
That is a revelation of the Government's attitude of mind, one of those Freudian slips which is so revealing. We are coming to the Government's rescue so that at this late hour it can remedy some of the damage caused by its indifference and arrogance towards the trade union movement and towards both sides of industry. I seriously ask that the Government should accept this Amendment and that the code of practice must be agreed with the T.U.C. and the employers' organisations before it is put to Parliament for approval.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: In many ways, although this is only one Amendment which deals with the principle of consultation, we are reaching the crux of the matter. The various methods which the Government have used to confuse their refusal to have meaningful consultations with the trade union movement over these matters will be those most hotly debated in years to come.
There has always been an underlying agreement in our parliamentary practice that there are a number of policies on which one can expect the Government to say that they are in the best position to judge. I apply this to any Government and I used to argue the same point with

my right hon. Friends when they were in office, and will do so again. There are many policies, like the attitude towards the conduct of the war in Vietnam or some aspect of Commonwealth policy about which the Government are entitled to say, "There are various organisations, one the trade union movement, with 10 million members, which express a certain view on that war, and we respect that view, but we say that there is no reason why our conduct should be decisively influenced by the point of view expressed. We, as a Government, believe that we are entitled to say, 'We are in a better position to judge than you.' After all, this is something which we ask the nation as a whole to implement—that is, to underwrite our foreign policy. We must, therefore, come back for parliamentary sanction and sanction at a General Election, the final sanction of our foreign policy being a matter which only the whole nation can ensure. But when we are conducting our affairs and negotiations with other nations, we must reserve the right to say that we know better than you what our policy ought to be."
However, the situation changes completely and radically when we come to industrial relations. It is monstrously unrealistic—I should say blind—for any Government to argue that they can, even with Parliamentary approval, impose a code of industrial conduct on the day-to-day business of about 44,000 individual enterprises and large publicly owned corporations. The proposition immediately becomes absurd. That is why I suggested at the beginning that we have in many ways reached the crux of the matter in this debate.
What are the consequences of what the Government are trying to do? They have used the excuse for not consulting the T.U.C. that the principles embodied in the Bill are not approved by the T.U.C. How short-sighted. If they proceed without such consultations, how will they make anybody in industry feel responsible for the kind of conduct which they will expect after they have passed the Bill and issued their code of industrial conduct?
Surely, it has always been common ground in this House and in all circles where industrial relations are discussed that the secret of getting anything done in


industry is the creation of an atmosphere of co-operation and consultation. The right hon. Gentleman incorporates in his work the functions of the Ministry and the Minister of Labour, the principal officer involved in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman knows, without my labouring the point, what I have in mind in saying that. In many ways, the Minister of Labour has always been apart from his colleagues. He has always been—I remind the Committee of Sir Walter Monckton and other past Ministers of Labour—the Minister who was not quite like some of his colleagues, because, although he has in his Ministry a chief conciliation officer, he always reserved to himself the right to supersede that officer and, when he judged it appropriate, to intervene and become the chief conciliation officer. This, in many ways, is one of his major functions.
How can the right hon. Gentleman expect either that his function will be properly exercised or that people in industry will feel responsible towards the working of the code of industrial practice when they have not been consulted on the details of what he is going to put into it? This is a matter which the Government have never explained.
We always get evasions from the right hon. Gentleman when we reach this point. On the one hand, the Minister argues that he at least has as much industrial experience as many others—I always accept what he says in that respect—and that, from his experience, he knows that these things must be done in a way which commits people to feeling that they have a reasonable interest in conducting themselves in a certain way.
On the other hand, when we move on to the question of consultation with the T.U.C., the right hon. Gentleman produces a completely contradictory argument: that, in the absence of prior agreement on principle, he could not proceed to these consultations.
Both propositions cannot be right. One or the other may be, but not both.
As a direct consequence of the Government's conduct, another development follows which is already beginning to show itself. There is throughout the country a growing loss of confidence among the trade union movement in the

intentions of the right hon. Gentleman which will reflect upon the way in which he will be successful or otherwise in carrying out his duties as Minister of Labour. It is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to separate himself into two sections.
People in industry and in the trade union movement, and any Member of the House who has conducted meetings on the proposals of the Bill, as practically all of us on this side have done—and, I dare say, there must be hon. Members opposite who have also had such meetings or, at least, have been approached by trade union constituents even if they themselves did not take the initiative in holding such meetings, but I am sure that some will have done that as well—must have known about the growing doubts in the minds of active and highly responsible trade unionists, to return for a moment to the blessed word which was discussed so much yesterday, people who are known in their firms and in their plants, sometimes plants employing 5,000 to 10,000 people, as the most responsible partners of their own management in settling in so many ways difficult situations without ever having a major dispute arising from them.
The right hon. Gentleman knows—he does not have to be told again and again—that 99 out of 100 industrial disputes are never brought to our notice because they are settled and resolved before they become a dispute in which the newspapers take an interest, although he, of course, with the resources of his Department, will hear about a great many of them. He knows, therefore, the calibre of the kind of people to whom I am referring. These very responsible people on the trade union side in industry, whose active work is greatly respected and recognised by so many enlightened managements in privately-owned corporations just as much as in publicly-owned industries, are now expressing more and more doubts as to whether they will be faced by a Minister of Labour who has reserved this position for himself.
There will be another consequence of the way in which the Government are proceeding in this matter which gives force and additional weight to the argument so clearly put by my right hon. Friend. Even now, my right hon. Friend


has rightly invited the Government to call a halt to the way they are conducting themselves in this business and to accept the Amendment. All sorts of problems face major sections of industry. For instance, one with which I am concerned in my constituency has the prospect of considerable redundancy. My experience was that whereas the discussions between the shop stewards' representatives, the full-time officer of the trade union involved and the management have revealed serious disagreements, on certain aspects of the situation which is developing there is important co-operation in spite of the general disagreement. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) agrees with me. As an active member of his trade union, he will know that these situations arise from time to time.

Mr. Dan Jones: Hon. Members opposite would do well, instead of smiling in such a smug manner, to look at the experiences of the late Iain Macleod, which support my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend has great experience in industrial matters and, no doubt, felt that additional attention should be directed to what I was saying. I was quite satisfied with the attention which I was receiving. It is the argument that matters.
The Minister and the Government know that we are far from satisfied—those who represent industrial workers are far from satisfied—with the position concerning redundancies. The secret agreements and arrangements that nobody is allowed to know about suddenly develop into mergers, and at short notice workers are presented with dismissal notices against which they no longer have any appeal. Difficult situations such as this call for an atmosphere in industry in which the trade union side feels very much committed to the kind of code that is obtained and is at work. If the Government refuse to accept the Amendment and change their attitude, there will be a growing loss of confidence about calling in a third party to help resolve industrial problems which arise when a merger develops behind the scenes and problems of redundance arise.
I could give many more examples, but there is no point in doing that because

everyone knows that good relationships are essential between the people who do the work on both sides of industry and the right hon. Gentleman's Department if we are to produce the best solution in the difficult circumstances that I have outlined.
I think that I have said enough to reinforce my right hon. Friend's argument and to ask the Government to consider the Amendment with the seriousness that it deserves.

Mr. Douglas: I rise to support my right hon. Friend's argument and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), and also to pose certain questions to the Minister in the hope of getting satisfactory answers to them.
In his reply to an earlier Amendment the Minister gave a comprehensive list of the items likely to be covered by this code of industrial practice. The list included many facets of our industrial life, and I should like to query how we can include in such a Code of Practice all these

Mr. Dudley Smith: I did not give a comprehensive list, but an illustrative list, because I was pressed by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) to give some indication of what was intended. I said that it was not meant to be a comprehensive list. It was an indication of some of the areas which the Code of Practice would probably cover.

Mr. Douglas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Let me rephrase my statement and say that it was a fairly comprehensive list. The kernel of my remarks is that the drawing up of this list ought not even to have been embarked upon without consulting the major bodies responsible for industrial relations, or at least the key organisations.
There is no excuse for the Government's bringing forward this type of measure on the ground that industrial relations have become so important that something must be done about them, for their trying to persuade the key organisations of employers and trade unions that they are important in the national context, and then proceeding to insult both sides of industry by refusing to have consultations with them about a document which the Minister has said will form a valuable background to the new


organisations which the Bill seeks to create.
4.15 a.m.
There is no excuse for it. It is out of keeping with the history—certainly the modern history—of the Ministry of Labour, or the Department of Employment as it now is. I shudder to think of the great figures that held the office of Minister of Labour—people like Ernest Bevin—getting the co-operation of both sides of industry and then ignoring them, in terms of statutory provisions.
In reply to a previous Amendment the Minister used the analogy of the Highway Code. I want to use the analogy of other legislation that the House has passed. Imagine our trying to embark on an annual Price Review and telling the farmers' representatives "Anybody interested in this matter can write in and make his observations known, so that we can concoct an annual Price Review". Imagine the uproar that would come from the farmers' organisations if that posture were adopted by a Government of any political colour.
If the Minister is to resist the Amendment, I want to know whether it is on the ground that if we insert these words it might exclude other organisations from making representations. If so, his argument rests on a dubious legal foundation. Now that we have moved from the Preamble and the generalities we are saying that the House is responsible for seeing that the relevant Secretary of State has a direct and specific responsibility for ensuring adequate consultation and obtaining the agreement of the major representatives of both sides of industry for this code of industrial practice.
The nation will have watched the postures of the Minister. He is very good at his public relations. We charge him to be good in his public relations not only from the point of view of the mass media but in terms of writing provisions into a statute which can be enforced in the courts.

Mr. Dan Jones: It would appear that I was not entirely in order when I made an interjection during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). I still make the point that if the Minister wants to find the kind of justification for the Amendment that would convince him more

sensibly than any argument advanced from this side of the Committee he should consider the attitude of the late Iain Macleod, when he was Minister of Labour during the 1957 strike in the engineering industry, to what we fondly call the little T.U.C.—the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions. If the Minister will do so he will find all the justification he needs for accepting an Amendment of this character. He will lose much if he does not read of the experiences of that period—

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I happened to be the late Iain Macleod's Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry at the time. Naturally, close consultations took place. Nobody had to write anything into the Statute Book.

Mr. Jones: That is hardly the point. The point is that that man had the breadth of vision and the wisdom to see that there were consultations with these people, because he knew that they had responsibility for handling these affairs, and before he made a move he had the sort of consultations that the Amendment asks the Minister to have. I ask the Minister to read of those experiences and to refresh his mind about them. I am aware of the position that the right hon. Gentleman held, but I held a position in the trade union movement and I well remember the experiences of that time.

Mr. Atkinson: I wish to bring hon. Gentlemen opposite down to earth. There are no trade unionists waiting to get down to detailed discussions to create a code of industrial practice. It seems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) may be giving hon. Gentlemen opposite the wrong idea. There will be no cosy chat between the trade unions and the Government on this matter.
Hon. Members are under an illusion if they do not appreciate the bitterness that exists in the trade union movement over this proposed Code of Practice. [Interruption.] If the monocled hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has something to say, he should get to his feet and not mutter under his breath. I often wonder why he


closes the eye with which he is supposed to look through the monocle and opens the other eye.
Is it any wonder why the trade unions are not anxious to formulate a code of practice with the Government, considering the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite dismissed the T.U.C. as being virtually non-existent? Now we know that the Government are prepared to drive every postman into the ground and to extract the last drop of blood from them. This is their policy. How, in the sort of atmosphere which the Government have created, can they expect trade unionists to have anything to do with their proposals? It will be a long time before trade unionists have anything to do with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Workers throughout the country are talking about taking general strike action against this legislation. They see it as a threat to their fundamental freedoms. Trade unionists have declared that they will never serve on these courts and other bodies and there is non-co-operation over a wide area. Indeed, the Labour movement is likely to disown people who serve on the bodies proposed to be established by the Government.
My earlier remarks were designed to get the Government to produce a White Paper setting out the basis of the industrial practices they have in mind so that we may more easily interpret some of the later provisions in the Bill. I wish to make it clear, however, that there will be no co-operation with the Government over this and that in the last few days hon. Gentlemen opposite have declared war on the trade union movement.

Mr. Orme: One of the extraordinary things about this Clause and the proposed Code of Practice is that we are being asked to buy something which we have not seen. In a previous reply the Minister said that he would give a few illustrations of what might be in this Highway Code, as he called it. He said that it would include the question of the attitude of management to redundancy and collective bargaining, and all sorts of factors. He said that the code is still being presented, and that it would not provide a reason for taking an issue to the Industrial Court, but that it could be used at the court as guidelines for the court if it were dealing with an issue arising from the Bill.
We are discussing a Bill of 156 Clauses and eight Schedules. We are being asked to accept, within the terms of the Bill, something which we have not seen but which will run alongside the Bill and will be guidelines in industry.

Mr. R. Carr: It will help to shorten our proceedings if I make clear to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), in case he does not already realise it, that the code will have to have the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. There is no question of this being something which hon. Members have not seen.

Mr. Orme: The point was made earlier that it was hoped that by the spring the code would be prepared and perhaps dealt with in the House by the autumn. I do not deny that. But while we are discussing the broad principles of the Bill, we are asked to pass a Clause setting up a code of conduct, which is to run parallel and in unison with the Bill, with points we have not yet seen.
In the engineering industry, with which I have had dealings, when a major agreement is concluded and issued, it is a very detailed agreement. It is interesting that both sides of the industry produce notes for guidance for interpretation by managers and shop stewards throughout the industry. The three-year package deal which is just coming to a close is a classic example. Fundamental points are explained and explored in the notes and guidance is given to negotiators in industry. This is accepted by both sides, and when there is a dispute about an agreement at a local works conference, or if we go to York, the notes for guidance are produced and both sides accept them as factual—but there is argument about interpretation. But there will be no acceptance with the code of practice because the trade unions have not been and will not be consulted about it and, because of their attitude to the Bill, would not take part in discussions in any case, having been originally thrown out through the door at St. James's Square by the Minister. Mr. Feather has gone on record about the very cursory manner in which they were told, "You can come here and discuss the details but you will have to accept the principles, whether you like them or not."
The trade union movement will not become parties to this discussion. I


accept that it will not be invited, so there will be imposed upon industry not only the Bill, which the trade union movement opposes, but a Code of Practice which our side of industry completely refuses.
4.30 a.m.
How are any sensible industrial relations to be obtained on that sort of basis? We have difficulty with agreements, particularly in the engineering industry. A great deal of discussion and negotiation on the York Memorandum is going on, with a view perhaps to changing it. The passage of the Bill is holding that up. Even under that memorandum there is within our industry a broad acceptance of the good will that there is in the main on both sides of manufacturing industry.
In future we shall have something imposed on industry from outside, from a Ministry, from a Parliament, which will have judicial backing. The law will be brought directly into industrial relations. If people cannot see that, they cannot see what all the argument is about and why we are discussing the matter in such depth and detail tonight.
My right hon. Friend has stated the importance of the Clause and what the Government are doing. The Bill will not be in the hands of every trade unionist, but many will have it. If it is passed it will become the knowledge of people fundamentally involved from day to day in negotiations. But the Code of Practice will probably be handled by tens of thousands of people. It will be discredited before it starts. I want the Minister to think about that.

Mr. Swain: When I asked the Under-Secretary whom he was going to consult, he said that he would consult all parties who made application for consultation. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) I warn him not to bother the postman with a letter to Victor Feather. I am certain that as a result of the attitude of the trade unions during the past months Victor Feather will steadfastly refuse to discuss a code of conduct in connection with a Bill to which the trade union movement is diametrically opposed.
I illustrate the Minister's answer tonight in this way. It reminds me of a hangman spending the full night with the man who is to be hanged next morning, Practising

tying the knot around the victim's neck to see whether it is comfortable. Then the victim was hanged. That is the type of discussion the Government appear to wish to have. The only people I can see the Government taking notice of are their paymasters. The code of conduct is still hypothetical. According to the Minister, it is still in the abstract. But it should have been the meat on which the bones of the Bill were constructed. We should be discussing it in conjunction with the Bill.
The Amendment moved so eloquently by my right hon. Friend is sensible and moderate. It is not a wrecking Amendment. It would bring some common sense into the Clause. She knows as well as the trade union movement that the word "consultation" coming from the lips of the Secretary of State, his colleagues in the Government and hon Members opposite, who are so loyally supporting him although some of them appear to be asleep at the moment, is nothing but Tory cant. "Consultation" does not mean genuine consultation to them; it means dictatorship by the Minister. It means his attitude, "I want you to come to talk to me but in the end you will have to do as I tell you."
That is the sort of consultation we used to experience years ago. I am convinced that the Secretary of State is taking us back to those dark ages and the struggle which used to take place then between trade unions and employers. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that we could make progress instead of retarding.
But I do not see us making any impression on the right hon. Gentleman. Yet we know of the success of consultation by his Department, as exampled in its conciliation officers when we have been faced with strikes, although the present Secretary of State has sent them out only half-heartedly to deal with issues after the unions have gone into the struggle. The result has been that, since last June, the consultations have been negative. They have yielded no positive results. Consultation as envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman is a waste of time and I am sure that Mr. Feather and the General Council will consider it as such.
A few days ago, we had a national demonstration day. [Interruption.] I wish the joint political conference going on was over so that hon. Members who are


interested in the Amendment could listen to what was being said. I say that with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who is playing a great part in the attempt to make this Bill better—or a genuine attempt to defeat it in toto. I say that with deference to him but none to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who chatters away like a cage of monkeys in Regent's Park Zoo. Talking to oneself is one of the worst habits in the world.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) was addressing the Chair and had his back to me, and I knew that he could not see me. I went over to ask the hon. Member whether I had lost some weight because he, like others, might have thought that I had faded away quickly and was no longer visible. But he assured me that I have not lost that amount of weight.

Mr. Swain: Even if my hon. Friend were invisible, he would not be inaudible. I was saying that the hon. Member for Peterborough has been chattering like a cage-full of monkeys, and in Derbyshire people would say that a man who talks to himself consistently is on the road to Mickleover, that being where the asylum is.
In the Minister's mind, the idea of consultation is just hypothetical; it does not mean consultation in the true sense. It means that the T.U.C. or other interested parties would trot along to the Ministry—there would be no tea and cakes at midnight at Downing Street for them, because there is no hostess there to entertain them—and, after spending hours of boredom listening to the Secretary of State, they would come away having learned nothing because the right hon. Gentleman could not teach them anything. [An HON. MEMBER: "The same goes for the Post Office workers."] I was coming to the question of consultation with the Post Office workers, the electricity workers and with the miners. When we were in a struggle with the employers only a few weeks ago, the consultation was meaningless.
The Code of Practice should have been spelled out to us line by line so that we could have something tangible to talk about. In the event, the Code of Practice, when it is introduced, will be strictly

dependent on the success or failure of the Bill in the first month or two, yet that Code of Practice could disturb labour relations which have been built up over a great many years more than anything else could, more even than the Bill itself.
Let the Secretary of State be honest with the Committee—that will be strange, coming from a Conservative Minister, to say the least—and let him tell us what his Code of Practice is to be. He has not made these proposals without some foreknowledge of what it is to contain. I understand that the Code of Practice will need an affirmative Resolution of both Houses, but that will be a mere formality once the Bill has become law. Therefore, it is fundamental to our debates, and fundamental to the Amendment now before us, that the Committee be made aware of the structure and framework of the Code of Practice, at least, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us what the details will be.

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I feel that I do not make my best speeches at a quarter to five in the morning, but one of the penalties of sitting in the Chamber is that one sometimes hears provocative remarks or remarks which call for elucidation. We are talking about good industrial relations, but I admit that the Chief Whip never consults me about how long we are to sit, whether we can expect to get Clause 2, or which point in the Bill we are supposed to reach.
I do not think that it is too big an intrusion to take up a few minutes of the time of the House on a serious point. The Under-Secretary referred earlier to the Code of Practice, and that has prompted me to make this contribution.
I am quite sure he will now realise that he will have to explain what he means about this Code of Practice. He suggested that the Highway Code gives some idea of his approach to this matter. Obviously, there is agreement in the Highway Code that everyone should drive on the left-hand side of the road. There are certain rules there which are accepted by everyone, and the Highway Code would be meaningless unless that were so.
The Under-Secretary used the phrase, "facilities for employees", and I should


like to ask whether those facilities will include accommodation for representation of the workers. Will they be granted the use of a 'phone? Does the hon. Gentleman know that there was almost a revolution in the Fairfield experiment on the Clyde, because the new management suggested to the shipbuilding people that there should be a room available for shop stewards, which was unheard of? Is that the kind of facility which will be included? What about meetings held during working hours? Will there be general guidance in the Code of Practice about the collection of subscriptions?
These are all important points, and it is meaningless for a Minister to come to the House unless he is prepared to give some idea of what is going to be in the Code of Practice. Will there be a separate section dealing with the public sector where, before the events of the past few weeks, there might have been a possibility of getting a model Code of Practice? Has the hon. Gentleman destroyed that possibility, because of the handling of the industrial situation over the last few weeks?
We are surely entitled to some information. Or is it, as I am beginning to suspect, that no matter how plausible—I put it no worse than that—or how reasonable Government spokesmen on the Front Bench are, they are afraid to give any indication that they are willing to consult anyone? Will their backbench Members stand for it? They are all howling for blood. Will their supporters outside stand for it? [Interruption.] This is a matter of opinion, and I have stated my opinion.

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I hope that the Committee will allow the hon. Gentleman to get on with his speech.

Mr. Brown: The Government may have realised that there is a mood in the country which wants action against trade unions. The matter has not been thought out, but that mood exists and the Government are prisoners of the very attitude which they have encouraged in the public.
I do not believe that when he replies the Minister will be prepared to indicate that he might even have to think about

compelling employers to make facilities available for trade unions. Are the Government willing to do that? They are willing to talk to some of the younger reactionary backwoodsmen that we have in this Parliament. Are they willing to spell out that they might even have to put pressure on employers? They should give us some indication about their Code of Practice. If they are not willing to accept the Amendment and to consult the major representative bodies, whom will they consult? Who do they think will write to them? Who will give them advice and information as to what might make a Code of Practice?

Mr. R. Carr: I am delighted to have the chance of replying to the debate.
Let me begin by assuring the Committee that there is no question of imposing a Code of Practice on industry without consultation. It has never been in our mind that such a thing should happen and I can give an unqualified assurance that I shall be taking the initiative in seeking discussions and views about the formation of this Code of Practice. I shall be making every effort to consult. What does alarm me, or it would if I believed that certain hon. Members spoke for anyone other than themselves, is the suggestion which came, for example, from the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) that the T.U.C. and trade unions generally would refuse to participate in consultation.

Mr. Swain: The actions and words of the members of the General Council and of Mr. Victor Feather during the past week or two and the demonstrations that have been held—although some backbench Members think that the demontrations were not a success—were indicative of the attitude of the T.U.C. towards the Government. If the Government expect the T.U.C. to discuss with them in the climate of opinion created by this Bill I can say that I am speaking for the T.U.C. or at least for the Miners' Union, which is a very large and integral part of the T.U.C.

Mr. Carr: In which case some hon. Members—I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is among them—are urging me to accept Amendments which


they are saying the T.U.C. will not observe. That is exactly what the hon Member has said.

Mr. Atkinson: indicated assent.

Mr. Carr: I see the hon. Member nodding his head. When the hon. Member was speaking I could not help wishing rather strongly that our proceedings were televised and that all the people could hear the opinions he was stating. I have no doubt what the conclusion of the public would have been. I simply do not believe that a Measure passed by Parliament should suffer a deliberate attack to wreck it by non-co-operation, by a refusal to consult in accordance with its processes and participate in its machinery. It is not something which the public will understand or accept with any great toleration. Nor do I believe that that is what will happen. Only time till tell.

Mr. Orme: If the right hon. Gentleman will not take either the word of my hon. Friend or of myself on this, has he seen what Mr. Hugh Scanlon, President of the A.E.F., has said about the possibility that non-co-operation, non-registration will be considered at least by that union, which is one of the major unions in Britain? That is the voice of the premier official of the A.E.F.

Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed; and I am quite sure that the public at large will take note of it—

Mr. Orme: They will.

Mr. Carr: —and I am quite sure that that would be as untypical of the views and wishes of at least 80 per cent. of trade union members in this country as it would be of the views and wishes of 90 per cent. of the total population of this country. I do not believe that that will happen, because I believe that trade unions need, and understand the need for, public support, and want and respect public support and opinion, as much as any other body of people—in fact, I believe their history shows this at least as much as, if not more than, for any other section of public opinion.

Mr. Atkinson: The Minister suggested that 80 per cent. of the trade union movement are supporters of the Bill, or have some sympathy with the Bill, and that the great majority of the people have

sympathy with it. I do not know whether he meant the great majority of trade unionists or of the people as a whole. If that is the case, would he name a union which, in its national conference, between now and 18th March will record a decision in favour of this Bill and publicly declare its support for the Bill in any respect whatever? Secondly, will he predict what the decision of the Trades Union Congress will be on 18th March? If he has faith—

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think there is a definite danger now of our getting on to the general principles of the Bill as a whole. I hope that the hon. Member will adhere as closely as possible to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Atkinson: I was just finishing. I do not know why the Minister mentioned televising these proceedings and not other reporting of them. Surely the public know what is said here. This is a public rostrum. But on the question of the T.U.C., will the Minister say what the decision will be on 18th March?

Mr. Carr: I do not think I shall embark on that because I should be out of order. I was not at that moment expressing any view of the percentage of trade unionists who support the Bill, although there is a great deal of evidence, whatever may be the views of the executive committees, delegate conferences, and so forth, that the majority of the rank and file trade unionists do support it, or something like it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What I was saying on this occasion was something much less controversial. I said that I believe that 80 per cent.—I should be surprised if it is not a much higher percentage—of trade unionists in this country do respect an Act of Parliament passed properly through Parliament by a democratically elected Government, particularly one which had made it a major feature of their election appeal to the country. That, I believe, is true, and I believe that it will be seen to be true when the time comes.
I repeat that I assure the Committee that I shall be seeking views and that I shall be seeking consultation. I only hope that I get it. I am going to expect


to get it. I am going to seek it, and I hope that this time the trade unions will feel able to come to consult me fully, as I very much wish they had done earlier this autumn. It could have been of great benefit, as other institutions and individuals have found.

Mr. John Mendelson: Speaking for myself, I certainly take the view that it is for the trade union movement itself to declare which attitude it will adopt at any time. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I was very careful to stress that the Amendment which I am supporting demands that the Government get agreement with the T.U.C. and employers' organisations, not merely consultation. That is the argument to which he has to address himself.

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Carr: I certainly shall address myself to that argument. I stress the importance which the Government attach to this Code of Practice. We have always seen the Bill and the Code of Practice as central and complementary one to the other. The basic framework of the law in the Bill is the instrument by which we lay down the boundaries within which people are free to act. Because the Bill lays down boundaries of freedom it inevitably has to be to some extent negative rather than positive in character. By definition law is a restraining, restrictive instrument. But, within the boundaries, the Code of Practice can play an immensely important, positive, constructive rôle in giving guidance both to managements and to unions, particularly in individual companies, on what are in most circumstances the best practices to follow.
The reason why we do not think that these practices can be laid down specifically within the Act of Parliament is that if we are to be as constructive and positive as this we cannot lay down precisely what should be done in each and every industry and each and every company. That is why we cannot make it obligatory, and it would be wrong to try.
Moreover, the code must be flexible and capable of frequent revision or supplementation. That, again, is a reason for putting it forward as something which will be presented to Parliament in draft for approval by affirmative Resolution of both Houses, at the same time laying

down machinery by which the code can be easily revised, supplemented and changed as conditions change and as experience teaches us.
So we pay enormous attention to the importance of the code and the flexibility of the procedure of guidance and help which it can offer in bringing up the average performance of British industry somewhat nearer the best. Industrial relations in Britain at their best are as good as if not better than anywhere else in the world. We need to bring up the average nearer to the best. We can include in the Code of Practice positive guidlines for management, trade unions and individual employees which will help to speed up the raising of the average level of the conduct of industrial relations, and that is why we regard it as so important.
I think that it would not be the wish of the Committee, if I may say so with respect to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), that I should go through the details of what might be in this code, but I can assure him that I would expect the code to have many important things to say about the duties of management in providing facilities for trade unions and trade unionists. I would certainly expect this subject to be covered in the Code of Practice. These matters can make all the difference to the smooth working of plants and companies and these are the sort of guidelines and standards which we want to set down. So I repeat my assurance that there will be consultation.
I have now to address myself to the group of Amendments. Essentially they deal with two different stages of the Code of Practice, namely, the stage of preparing the initial code and then the stage of adding to or revising. The code deals with different themes. The theme exemplified in the Amendment by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn demands that we should attain the agreement of industry, the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the employers' associations before coming forward with the code. Other themes in this group of Amendments merely ask us to discuss and consult.
We cannot accept the suggestion that agreement must be obtained, nor would any Government of any party ever accept such an Amendment. It means that we should be giving to the C.B.I., the T.U.C.


or to any other organisation that might be named, an absolute right of veto over the production of this code in any form. I do not believe that that would be right and I cannot accept it.
The question of consultation is a different matter. The only matter at issue there is not whether it should be done, but to what extent, if any, the requirement should be written into an Act of Parliament. I should like to distinguish between the two stages of producing the code, namely the first stage, the preparation of the initial code, and then what we shall do about making revisions and additions to it in the future.
I regard the first stage, the production of the initial code, as a matter of great urgency in time as well as of great importance. In fact, I am beginning to proceed towards preparation, consultation and discussion on this matter immediately.
I want to put this matter in its constitutional context. In the form as here envisaged, the code comes under this Bill—which is not yet, of course, an Act of Parliament. I wish to make it clear that I am going ahead with preparations and discussions about this code, not only because I hope that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament this Session, but in view of the fact that, even if it were not to do so, we should still want to publish a Code of Practice on industrial relations. Therefore, even if Parliament were to turn us down on this Bill, as I am sure it will not, we should still wish to publish a Code of Practice which in itself, we believe, would be of great value.
I hope and trust that before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, I shall have had many deep and long discussions and consultations with everybody who wishes to speak to me on this point. That includes not only the T.U.C. and the main unions, but the C.B.I. and the main employers' associations and companies. It also will include bodies like the Industrial Society, the Institute of Personnel Management—and I could go on. There are many bodies which have important views to put forward, and there are many people involved—including some who do not agree with some of the legislative provisions but who nevertheless strongly agree with the great potential value of the Code of Practice and wish to contribute to its form. I shall very much welcome that contribution.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that to some extent he is destroying his own case? He said that he could not seek agreement with the bodies involved and that the Government had responsibilities. Most of us would accept that. Does the Secretary of State not realise that he is in a peculiar situation in not having a mandate for this Bill according to the interpretation of democracy in his own Bill? He has only 32 per cent. of the people eligible to vote and has to use persuasion to get agreement. He certainly has no mandate in Scotland even if he has in this country.

Mr. Carr: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was a Scottish Nationalist who believed that Scotland should be ruled separately from the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that he is trying to pre-empt a debate which we shall be having on a later Clause. I hope to seek agreement, but the Government are not prepared, nor would any other Government be prepared, to subject an important matter of this kind to the veto of any one section or interest in our society and economy. Consult, by all means. Seek agreement, by all means. But no Government should accept a right of veto imposed from outside in that way.
I shall be consulting and discussing on the initial code and I hope very much that the trade unions will join in. I shall do my best to persuade them, but I cannot subject what I believe is a vital matter in the improvement of industrial relations in this country to the possible refusal by some body to consult with me, and I must therefore maintain the right to produce this initial code in the form in the Bill.
When we come to the revision of the code, it will be within the power not just of this Secretary of State but of all my successors to lay down that the C.I.R. should be given the opportunity to be consulted and to advise before revision, which also includes additions. When we get to that stage, we shall have flexibility and, I hope, time, and I hope that by then all these things will be working in a much smoother manner. It is right that that should be so.
I have then to consider, as I have mentioned, the C.I.R.'s place in the Bill, and taking account of the well-established


practice to consult with all the sorts of bodies which hon. Members have in mind, to consider whether I should not specifically mention certain other bodies in addition. I am in genuine doubt because I am sure that it is the C.I.R.'s job to be corporate advisor to the Secretary of State in these matters. That is why, and the only reason why, the T.U.C. or the C.B.I., or words implying those bodies, were not written into this Clause.
I am sympathetic to that feeling. When the C.I.R. has advised the Secretary of State on continual revisions of the code, the Secretary of State of the day must be quite open to hear and to take account of representations which bodies such as the T.U.C., and the C.B.I. wish to make to him.
If it helps the House, while I cannot accept the wording of any of the Amendments, I will consider whether, in relation to the revisions Clause, Clause 3, I can on Report import some words which give substance to the assurance which I have given to the House in respect of formal recognition given to the rights of bodies like the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. to have their views taken into account.
I want to do this in a way which must not overrule the responsibility, the authority and the influence of the C.I.R. That is why I am somewhat reserved about giving a specific promise. But, for what it is worth, I give the undertaking that I will consider this matter to see whether, on Report, I can find some words to import into Clause 3 which will meet the wish of at least the other side of the Committee.

5.15 a.m.

Mrs. Castle: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having at last overcome his reluctance to rise and wind up

Division No.61.]
AYES
[5.20 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Booth, Albert
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cohen, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Concannon, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Conlan, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Barnes, Michael
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Joel
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)


Beaney, Alan
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cant, R. B.
Davidson, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Bishop, E. S.
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)

the debate. The enthusiasm of the Government for encouraging verbosity, not least on their own side, hardly accords with the kind of aura of urgency which they have endeavoured to give to the subject. It is duly noted, and the significance of the right hon. Gentleman's slow motion activities is, I think, clear to us.

When the right hon. Gentleman got to his feet, he took a great many words indeed, despise the lateness of the hour, to tell us simply that he was not prepared to import any element of democratic participation into the drawing up of this Code of Practice.

The right hon. Gentleman need not trouble himself or waste any time or sleep worrying whether, on Report, he should import a provision that there should be consultation on the revising of the Code of Practice when the C.I.R. is brought in. We are asking for something different. I agree with my hon. Friends that if the Code of Practice is to remain unagreed, is to come straight from the Government without anybody else having a chance to influence and mould it, the T.U.C. will not be interested in the kind of consultation which the right hon. Gentleman is offering, because it has no impact, no influence.

The right hon. Gentleman goes through the motions. He does not believe in it; he is not influenced by it; he does not listen to it seriously. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee on the Amendment so that we can get on with more important business, because we want to make progress even if the Government do not.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 212, Noes 246.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Delargy, H. J.
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McBride, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Sillars, James


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Small, William


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John
Taverne, Dick


Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tinn, James


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Varley, Eric G.


Hilton, W. S.
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Wallace, George


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael
Watkins, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverool, Exchange)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie



Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman
Mr. John Golding.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Drayson, G. B.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dykes, Hugh


Astor, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Farr, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chapman, Sydney
Fell, Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Benyon, W.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fidler, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Churchill, W. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Biffen, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Peter
Coombs, Derek



Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Cooper, A. E.
Fortescue, Tim


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman


Boscawen, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Fox, Marcus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Curran, Charles
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bowden, Andrew
Dalkeith, Earl of
Fry, Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Braine, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Gibson-Watt, David


Bray, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)







Glyn, Dr. Alan
McLaren, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian


Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gorst, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Maddan, Martin
Royle, Anthony


Green, Alan
Madel, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maginnis, John E.
Scott, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gummer, Selwyn
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mawby, Ray
Simeons, Charles


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Soref, Harold


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Abrdeenshire, W.)
Speed, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Havers, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernie D.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayhoe, Barney
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus
Stokes, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Holland, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sutcliffe, John


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tapsell, Peter



Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Horden, Peter
Mudd, David



Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Temple, John M.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hunt, John
Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Tilney, John


Iremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trew, Peter


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jessel, Toby
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wall, Patrick


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner
Ward, Dame Irene


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pounder, Rafton
Warren, Kenneth


Kershaw, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kinsey, J. R.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wiggin, Jerry


Kirk, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wilkinson, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Raison, Timothy
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Knox, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lane, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Redmond, Robert
Woodnutt, Mark


Le Marchant, Spencer
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Worsley, Marcus


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Younger, Hn. George


Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Loveridge, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Walter Clegg and


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Victor Goodhew


McCrindle, R. A.

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 386, in page 2, line 18, after 'State', insert
'or, in the case of teachers in maintained schools the Secretary of State for Education and Science after consulting with organisations representing teachers'.

The Chairman: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, with that Amendment, we take Amendment No. 387, in page 2, line 19. after 'Act' insert:
'such code of practice shall have regard to the position and the practices applicable to employees in local authorities'.

Mr. Jones: Thank you, Sir Robert.
5.30 a.m.
I think that at this wretched hour it would be stretching the limits of the tolerance of the Committee if I were to speak overlong, and I am certain that I can be very brief if the Committee will bear with me for two minutes. I should declare an interest, in that I am a member of the National Union of Teachers, and until I was elected to Parliament in June of this year I worked for that union. But I do not come before the Committee with a sectional interest; I want to point out what I regard as a serious anomaly in the Bill. The professions in general, and the


teachers in particular, are not adequately catered for.
It is well to consider the membership of the teaching profession. In one way or another it could amount to 400,000. Certainly there are 330,000 practising teachers, and there are 100,000 trainee teachers in colleges and universities. Taking into account other public servants, the percentage of this category in terms of the total work force must be large. Having regard to the working record of this category—which is not free from strikes—the Government should have had more regard for it in the Bill.
It would be a good idea if the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and those civil servants who aid the Minister in Curzon Street, were involved in the problems of teachers. I believe, as do the teachers' unions, that the terminology of the Bill is slanted in favour of industry and commerce, to the detriment of the professions, and I have moved the Amendment in order to draw this fact to the attention of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am sure that the Committee appreciates the good intentions of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) in moving the Amendment, having the interests of the teachers at heart as he does. The Amendment would require the Secretary of State, in preparing a draft Code of Practice, to take into account the opinion of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science concerning the position of teachers in maintained schools, and would oblige him to consult organisations representing teachers.
In preparing the Code of Practice my right hon. Friend will consult many people. He will consult other Government Departments, including his Ministerial colleagues who have an interest in the preparation of the Code of Practice. Those Departments will include the Department of Education and Science. I submit that it is unnecessary to place my right hon. Friend under a statutory obligation to consult. There seems no good reason for singling out a certain part of the public sector for special consultation in this way. It could lead to similar demands from other groups—although I realise that the teachers have a special interest.
Whether or not the Department of Education and Science should seek the

views of teachers' organisations is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. No doubt that will be taken into account. I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing to prevent such organisations making representations direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or, in the case of affiliated organisations, through the T.U.C. That includes the N.U.T. and the N.A.S. I hope that when the time comes they will take every opportunity to make those representations.
With the assurance that we are open to such representations but do not wish to single out teachers for special statutory treatment, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move Amendment No. 384, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'in particular have regard to' and insert:
'have regard to—

(a) the need for those who manage undertakings to accept the primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations, and
(b)'.

I know that this Amendment has the wholehearted support of my hon. Friends. I hope that it will be equally supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite because this is a matter concerning industrial relations about which I think there can be unanimous agreement and is an aspect which I hope can be emphasised by the Committee as a whole.
In previous speeches in the House on this subject—I made this point in the debate on the Consultative Document and, I believe, on Second Reading—I have pointed out that when we have created the right environment, we must look to leadership in our voluntary system from both management and trade unions. However, I have always gone on to stress that the primary responsibility for that leadership must rest with management, starting from the very top in each company, because if they do not lead, who can follow?
The purpose of the Amendment is specific. It would write into the Clause—which instructs the Secretary of State on


how the Code of Practice is to be prepared—specific responsibilities which he should take into account in preparing the Code, with the primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations resting with those who manage undertakings.
I need not, at this juncture, delay the Committee by going into the matter further; I will answer any questions that are asked by hon. Members. I hope and believe that this proposition will have the unanimous support of the Committee.

Mr. Orme: I have been asked to reply for the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We oppose the Amendment and will vote against it. We oppose it primarily because it takes us back to the earlier debate we had about worker participation in industry and the various responsibilities of management and workers. We do not accept that on the whole question of good industrial relations the responsibility is the sole prerogative of management.
In industry the issue of managerial function has confounded many of the negotiations that have taken place, and it is in relation to managerial function and the trade unions wanting to have a better status that our opposition to the Amendment becomes clear.
For example, in the engineering industry a new agreement is being negotiated. The engineering employers wanted to change one basis of collective bargaining by deleting the right of mutuality. This right—by which any agreement made between employees and management must be mutual; one or other side can reject it, so that the employers cannot proceed without there being mutual agreement—has existed in this industry.
The Secretary of State will be aware of some of the negotiations that have been going on. For example, the management of British Leyland is seeking to change the wage structure from piece work to measured day work. Basic discussions are taking place on that. These discussions have gone right through the engineering agreement. But at the end of the day the unions reserve the right not to have forced upon them a different form of wage negotiation and wage structure if it cannot be mutually agreed between the management and the trade

unions. Therefore, we cannot accept that good industrial relations is the primary responsibility of management. It is the responsibility of workers within the industry and both management and the trade unions. By free collective bargaining we mean equating the right of the worker with management.
The Secretary of State will recognise that basic changes are taking place within industry and that the industrial atmosphere is changing. We are now moving from the small family firm to the multinational company and huge combines, where it is very difficult to ascertain the owner of the company. In many large combines some of the senior management people are as confused about the situation and their relationship within the combine as the worker on the shop floor.
While there is this changing atmosphere and while workers are asking for participation in management and ownership within industry, it is a little naive of the Secretary of State to ask the House to accept the Amendment, where he rests the issue of prime responsibility on management. I hope that the Opposition will vote against the Amendment.

Mr. John Page: I have listened to the debate for 17 hours. I have not yet made a speech, and this will be a short one. I cannot understand why the Opposition are opposing this Amendment. It is the most extraordinary example of schizophrenia I have yet heard in the 17 hours. Only minutes ago the Committee were being told that it was up to management to make more provision and more room, and to supply more telephones, for shop stewards and to allow time for trade union meetings during working hours. There has been consistent criticism from the benches opposite of the attitude of management in connection with industrial relations.
My right hon. Friend has quite rightly suggested the insertion here of what I should have thought every person in the Committee would agree with: the statement that the primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations is with management. Does not the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) agree that it is the duty of management primarily to provide the atmosphere and leadership for good industrial relations? He has neither shaken his head nor


nodded it. Perhaps he does not wish to be seen to be a collaborator with me or to be too unfriendly with any member of the Tribune Group. But I have heard him speak over the years, and in the Prices and Incomes Board Committee, constantly pressing management to make more use of its opportunities.
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting this burden on management in writing in the Bill, the most appropriate place. This will rest on the shoulders of management, and taken into account in future discussion of the Bill will be the duty of managements to make a more positive effort to take the responsibility for good industrial relations on themselves. If the Opposition divide against the Amendment it will be a sign of even newer and deeper hypocrisy.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Tinn: I am astonished at the suggestion that we should oppose the Amendment, because it seems to me to contain a good deal of what many of us have always asserted, that the primary responsibility for maintaining good relations and giving the leadership for such relations lies with management, and that it has the main responsibility when those relations are not good. In many instances and in many ways management has the initiative in the creation of the atmosphere in which negotiations on industrial relations are conducted. It does not have the sole responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) suggested, but it has a primary responsibility for the improvement of those relations, and a heavy and primary responsibility whether they are inadequate or poor.
I am glad to see some hon. Members opposite nodding assent, but I should have liked a more ready and more frequent acceptance from their side that management in this country does carry a much heavier responsibility for what is wrong with industrial relations than does the labour side.

Mr. R. Carr: I was deliberately very brief in moving the Amendment, because I genuinely thought that I was putting forward a proposition that would have the wholehearted support of both sides of the Committee. It is important that we should be united about this if we can,

because I believe that it is one of the most important issues that we should lay down—the primary responsibility of management.
Perhaps I may remind the Opposition, before they decide how to vote on the Amendment, of paragraph 27 of the right hon. Lady's White Paper "In Place of Strife", because I still refuse to believe that that is totally buried. The first sentence of that paragraph reads:
The major responsibility for solving the problem lies with management.
If the right hon. Lady is no longer persuasive with her right hon. and hon. Friends, perhaps I could call in aid the Donovan Royal Commission Report, and part of it that is unanimous. I am sure that hon. Members who have read the Report will remember, without my quoting in extenso, that the responsibility of management, beginning with the responsibility of boards of directors, was one of its major themes, around which the Royal Commission built many of its most important recommendations.
For example, having analysed the situation in industrial relations in this country in paragraph 162, the first paragraph in a section of the Report headed
The Direction of Reform
the Royal Commission write early in that paragraph:
Consequently the remedy must seek to introduce greater order into factory and workshop relations.
The last sentence in paragraph 168 reads:
If Britain is to shift to factory agreements therefore the change must be accomplished by boards of directors.
This again emphasises the primary responsibility of management. In paragraph 182 the Commission said:
In order to promote the orderly and effective regulation of industrial relations within companies and factories we recommend that the boards of companies review industrial relations within their undertakings. In doing so, should have the following objectives in mind:
Then it lists a number of objectives.
I think I have quoted enough from Donovan to show that this concept of the primary responsibility of management was central to the Commission's analysis as to the direction and method and form it proposed. I would have hoped that this was one issue on which the Committee could and should have been


united. I believe it would be a great pity and will do damage if we are not united. I therefore appeal to the Front Bench opposite to think very carefully before following the advice given by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I believe that the Amendment deserves—indeed, commands—a very wide measure of agreement of those most knowledgeable both inside and outside the Committee.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we on the Opposition Front Bench should think very carefully before we follow the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). We accepted that my hon. Friend should oppose the Amendment in order that we could get very clearly from the right hon. Gentleman precisely what he and the Government have in mind. [Interruption.] As far as we are concerned, we are not arguing against the concept that those who manage undertakings should accept primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations. [Laughter.] We have argued that for many years. We have consistently argued that too many managements in the past have not accepted their responsibility for good industrial relations. Many speeches made by my hon. Friend have equally made that point in the House. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite had attended any discussions we have had on industrial relations, they would have known full well that that is the situation. I accept that some of them only rarely attend industrial relations debates and have not heard what my hon. Friend has been saying on this subject over the years.
What we are advising is that we should not vote against the Amendment, but if any of my hon. Friends feel so disposed themselves to do so, there is nothing that I or any Front Bench speaker on this side of the Committee could do to stop them. [Laughter.] We have a much better spirit of independence in our party than the Tories have in theirs.
I wish to make clear that we accept the concept of worker management. We have argued this in earlier debates on the Bill. We feel that we could well put down an Amendment at a later stage giving a definition of management and

managers, so at this stage we are advising our hon. Friends not to vote against the Amendment. [Laughter.] I realise that hon. Members opposite have been having a nice time earlier this evening, but let us treat the matter seriously. We have endeavoured from the outset to treat this whole business in a serious fashion, and we are doing the same now. It is not a laughing matter. We are asking our hon. Friends not to divide on this Amendment. We shall put down appropriate Amendments at a later stage to probe the matter further.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Philip Holland: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'information' and insert 'negotiation, consultation'.
I have never believed that it was possible by excess of words to bludgeon any Government into acquiescence on any matter. I shall not detain the Committee for long, not just for that reason but also because I believe that a good proposal will stand on its own feet and will be its own best advocate.
Why do I wish to delete one word and insert two others in its place? Clause 2(2) at present, in setting out the nub of the terms of reference of the code of industrial practice, stresses the
need for providing practical guidance with respect to disclosure of information by employers, and with respect to the establishment and maintenance of effective means of information …"—
that last word being the one which I wish to replace by the words "negotiation" and "consultation".
6.0 a.m.
The subsection stresses already the need with respect to disclosure of information by employers, and it seemed to me superfluous to stress again the need to bring information into the matter when there is no other purpose. Employers do not require information on trade union finance and that sort of thing. The essence of the matter here lies in information from the employer to the trade union, to give equality of information for negotiation purposes. Therefore, it seems to me superfluous to stress the word "information" a second time, and to leave out what I regard as a very important aspect of the code of good industrial relations practice. It is with that in mind that I propose deleting the


word "information" and inserting the words "negotiation, consultation", so that subsection (2) would then read,
… to the need for providing practical guidance with respect to disclosure of information by employers"—
which I regard as very important; it comes first and is therefore rightly emphasised—
and with respect to the establishment and maintenance of effective means of negotiation, consultation and communication at all levels".
That does not alter the intention of my right hon. Friend. I believe that it expresses the intention a little more fully and perhaps a little better than the original draft. I therefore commend this Amendment to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Amendment will give encouragement to large and small employers to reveal to the trade unions how much they contribute to the Tory Party political funds, to action groups and the rest?

Mr. Holland: I may be under a misapprehension, but I understood that this information was already disclosed under an Act brought in by the hon. Member's own Government.

Mr. Ashton: Yesterday we had a reference by the Minister to filibustering on Amendments, and I wondered whether this was the sort of Amendment that he had in mind. We are not trying to help the Government or to improve the Bill. That is not what we are here for. I am here to help the Opposition. But if the Government will look at the history of industrial relations in this country, they will see that when information is provided by an employer it leads to a very great reduction in the number of industrial disputes.
The number of coal mines has dropped from 700 to about 350, and a major technological change took place with hardly any industrial disputes at all. Disputes in industries such as mining have been about pay, and not about the reorganisation of those industries. Reorganisation has been accepted by the men, because full information has been given to the N.U.M. With regard to the growth of white collar workers in industry, and the growth of trade unions among the white collar workers, which are getting higher and higher up the scale with unions such as A.S.T.M.S. and D.A.T.A.

Mr. Holland: Is the hon. Member not supporting what I said? In my view, information from the N.U.M. to the management is required in a code of good industrial relations practice.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, but this Bill is going to be handled by lawyers in the courts and the position will be far more ambiguous than is the case now. With regard to the other aspects, I could quote the example of the Co-op, where several mergers and reorganisations have taken place with no industrial disputes at all, because proper information has been given to the staff.
This very day we have a dispute, one of the major points of which is how much a wage increase is going to cost. The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said yesterday that it would mean a 9d. stamp, but that is disputed by the union. But if the information were given in a way which could be checked, it might be a great step forward to settling the dispute, so we are in favour of information at all levels. We think that the hon. Member's Amendment would tend to confuse the object, which is the last think we want to do in a Bill which is already very confusing and ambiguous. That is why we do not recommend its acceptance.

The Solicitor-General: The Government take a more optimistic view of the effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is exactly as he has explained it, the deletion of the second reference to "information" doing no harm and the intention and effect of the subsection is improved by the addition of the words suggested by my hon. Friend. I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. It is entirely in line in spirit and practice with the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, and with the possible new principle in Clause 1 (1) referred to by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer).

Mr. Holland: May I say thank you to my hon. and learned Friend for the advice he has given to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am astonished that we should now have deleted "information" from what seems one of the principal provisions of the Code of Practice. The Committee will recall that my right hon. Friend's Bill was entirely devoted to the provision of information. The Government have retreated even further from the important principle that she established in her Bill.
We have been told precious little about the Code. It ought to have been made clearer, although we have had some guidance insofar as Clause 2 (1) refers to the need for a Code of Practice to provide guidance for the purpose specified in Clause 1 (1) of the Bill. Because we oppose Clause 1 (1) we are obviously opposed to anything which is designed to benefit that. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary have been skimpy at best in the information that they have so far provided about the content of the code.
There was a curious dichotomy between the approach of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. The Under-Secretary assured the Liberal Party, when it sought to reduce the period of preparation, that there was no need to be in a hurry, because other parts of the Bill, when enacted, could be implemented, whereas the right hon. Gentleman subsequently said that the Code of Practice was crucial to the Bill, and that this and the other parts of the Bill hang together.
I was rather surprised at the extraordinary—I hope the Under-Secretary of State will forgive me when I say—glibness with which he trotted out to the Committee phrases about the responsibility of management and so on—a whole host of things. He mentioned them so fast that I could not quite catch them all, but they all sounded to me at the time extremely complex and deserving of the serious consideration of the Committee. It would seem to me there is a requirement for the House to know more about the purposes and contents of the Code of Practice, and, in spite of the Amendment, that the Code should make some reference to responsibility to provide information. It seems to me particularly important in view of Clause 52. I assume that whoever replies for the Government will refer me to Clause 52 in respect to the provision of information, but Clause

52 hinges on this Clause 2 and that subsection with which we have been dealing. I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that when we eventually reach Clause 52 we shall not be told, when pressing him and his hon. Friends on the need for information, that the horse has bolted because we should have pressed that matter when dealing with the Code of Practice. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give more information, or some assurance about this, I must advise my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Mr. R. Carr: The position gets curioser and curioser. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) started his speech by apparently wishing to oppose the previous Amendment which his hon. Friend who claimed to have been asked to reply indicated he and his hon. Friends would oppose, and when the Question was put we heard one or two voices in opposition, which, we believe, included the voice of the right hon. Lady herself. That was not then pressed and the Amendment was carried without a Division, and then the hon. Member for Doncaster gets up and, on the Question, That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill, opposes the Amendment which, after much muddle, his side had just let through without a Division.

Mr. Harold Walker: I can well understand that the right hon. Gentleman has had a trying day, and I realise that he has been under considerable strain in the last 24 hours, but I was pointing out to him my astonishment that, after having written the word into the Clause in the first place, and given it such significance, and attaching such importance, particularly, I assume, to information in this code, and the contents of Clause 52, he should so readily have accepted such a change in the provisions of the Clause. Now perhaps he will address himself to the remarks I addressed to him rather than to differences which he imagines between my hon. Friend and me.

Mr. Carr: I was sorry those remarks were not addressed to me. I do not know whom the hon. Gentleman was addressing. I repeat, he began his speech by opposing an Amendment he had just let through without a Division. But he has misunderstood the purpose of it.


Indeed, he seems to have misunderstood the actual words of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and accepted, on behalf of the Government, by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
We are not deleting "information" from that subsection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton pointed out, the word "information" was mentioned twice in the subsection, and all my hon. Friend suggested was that, since it was mentioned twice, the second mention might be deleted and might better be replaced by "negotiation, consultation". So we have in this subsection, which contains the guidelines for the Secretary of State on what he must particularly take into account in preparing the Code of Practice, the proper sequence of events—information, communication of information, consultation and negotiation. This is the whole gamut of processes which must be recognised and taken particularly into account by the Secretary of State, along with the prime responsibility of management, in preparing the Code of Practice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is quite mistaken if he thinks that the purpose of the Amendment is to lessen the importance which we attach to information. When he studies the subsection as amended that will be clear to him.
6.15 a.m.
The hon. Gentleman principally wanted from the Government more information about the code of practice. I make no secret of the fact that I wish a draft code could have been available to the Committee so that what we have in mind could have been seen fully, but the more consultation and discussion there is about it the longer we need to produce it.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Should not the code have been available at this juncture? It could be argued that if the Bill became law and workers acted unlawfully and did not adhere to the code, the contents of the Bill would be invalidated. Is not this a serious omission at this stage?

Mr. Carr: I do not think it is, but of course the Bill would stand on its own feet with no code. We happen to believe strongly that a code will be of great advantage and that the two things go together.

Mr. Bidwell: That is axiomatic.

Mr. Carr: With respect, it is not axiomatic. The legislation proposed in the Bill—and indeed that in other countries—stands on its own feet without a code of practice. We believe that the Code of Practice will be extremely beneficial and influential, and that is why we are bringing it forward.

Mr. Bidwell: The fact that the code is mentioned in the Bill suggests that it will be of enormous importance in establishing what is lawful and unlawful.

Mr. Carr: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not so. As is made clear in Clause 4, the code does not attempt to lay down in any way what is lawful and unlawful. Its purpose is to set standards and guidelines which can be broadly followed by industry in encouraging responsible and informed collective bargaining, the establishment and observance of orderly and effective procedures for resolving grievances and disputes, the establishment of fair rights and obligations for all parties and the encouragement of effective communication and consultation. The code will not lay down what is lawful and unlawful.

Mr. James Hamilton: A great deal has been said about communication and consultation, which I agree are vitally important matters. I hope that any consultations between the right hon. Gentleman and the T.U.C. will be true consultation. Our information is that when the General Council met the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the Consultative Document, it was told immediately that the eight matters in that document would be in the Bill, quite irrespective of anything said by the General Council. If that is the sort of consultation that is involved, we want no part of it.

Mr. Carr: I think the hon. Gentleman is harping back to earlier matters. I do not complain about that. I repeat that I intend to have the fullest discussions and exchange of views with the T.U.C. and to have a word about the formation of the code. I only hope that the traffic will be both ways. I am a little nervous, judging by some of the things that have been said, that some of the hon. Gentleman's Friends will try to influence the T.U.C. and the unions not to participate in consultations. I hope that they will not


be successful. For my part I shall attempt to consult fully and shall take account of the views which are put forward.
I was asked for more details of what might be in the code. It would be wrong at this time of the morning for me to give a lengthy exposition, but if it will help I will indicate some subject headings.
One very important section of the code must be about the rôle of management. This is directly consonant with an earlier Amendment that dealt with management having a prime responsibility for creating good industrial relations. In the code we must define the principles of effective management, leadership and inititive. In that code we must define what are management's chief responsibilities to employees. Also, in the code we must define what is effective communication and essential information. On the matter of information the Committee will be aware that there was a reference to the C.I.R. by his right hon. Friend a few weeks before the General Election. I am anxiously waiting to hear from the Commission about its views on this subject, but I can assure the Committee that the question of information will be a central and important part of the code.
We believe that the code must say something about the rôle and training of supervisors which are required if we are to have good factory floor relations. We believe it must say something about the rôle of management in relation to facilities for trade unions and individual shop stewards in a plant, and not just officials outside the plant. We believe it must say something about the rôle of employers' associations and about the proper rôle of trade unions in company plants. We believe the code can be useful in laying down a model structure in collective agreements and the subject matter thereof, and the sort of disclosure of information required to make agreements effective and of a kind which we can genuinely expect people to enter into and to keep.
We cannot expect people to enter into agreements and bind themselves unless they feel that they are negotiating such agreements for the benefit of fair equality

Division No.65.]
AYES
[6.30 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey
Balniel, Lord


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Batsford, Brian

of information between the two parties to the agreement. I have given some examples of the sort of vital subjects, the very guts of a practical industrial relations system in individual companies and plants, that we shall include in this code of industrial relations practice. This is what we are doing in trying to distil what is best in British practice, and by including this in the code it will give it authority that will come from its association with this Bill and its specific approval by Parliament will be a substantial encouragement to the development of these good practices in the individual company and factory, because it is here that we can most effectively improve the quality of human relations in industry and the peaceful resolution of disputes which inevitably arise. That is the purpose of the code, the purpose of Clause 2.

I would, while fully realising the fundamental opposition on the benches opposite to this Bill, ask hon. Members to think carefully before voting against Clause 2. They know, as I know, that they will find many people outside this Committee who may be not in agreement with some or even all of our main legislative proposals but still strongly believe that the Code of Practice idea is of immense value and is essentially non-controversial.

Whatever may be the ultimate fate of the Bill and however long it may stay on the Statute Book—and I believe it will be longer than many hon. Members opposite imagine—this Code of Practice idea is of permanent value. We could all do good in the improvement of human relations in industry if we could unanimously bless this idea which could be separated from the other provisions of the Bill if a future Government or Secretary of State wished. It would be of great value if the Committee could give that blessing, recognising that it was by no means thus blessing the rest of the Bill.

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 204.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Havers, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Benyon, W.
Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hicks, Robert
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pink, R. Bonner


Blaker, Peter
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, Richard
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Boscawen, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bowden, Andrew
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Raison, Timothy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bray, Ronald
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bryan, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chapman, Sydney
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rost, Peter


Chichester-clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Kinsey, J. R.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cockeram, Eric
Kirk, Peter
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Coombs, Derek
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Simeons, Charles


Cooper, A. E.
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Cormack, Patrick
Lane, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Curran, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Le Marchant, Spencer
Soref, Harold


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Longden, Gilbert
Spence, John



Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
MacArthur, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Drayson, G. B.
McCrindle, R. A.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Dykes, Hugh
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Eden, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stokes, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Elliot, Capt. Walter (carshalton)

Sutcliffe, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Tapsell, Peter


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fell, Anthony
Madel, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maginnis, John E.
Tebbit, Norman


Fidler, Michael
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mather, Carol
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John


Fowler, Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Trew, Peter


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Stratton (Balfast, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gibson-Watt, David
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Molyneaux, James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Money, Ernie
Wall, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wiggin, Jerry


Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilkinson, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mudd, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gummer, Selwyn
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Worsley, Marcus


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Younger, Hn. George


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Normanton, Tom



Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Hastings, Stephen
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Joel


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Beaney, Alan


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Barnes, Michael
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood







Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orbach, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bradley, Tom
Hilton, W. S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Bon (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Horam, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'nor)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roper, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs. Ranée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Sillars, James


Delargy, H. J.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyone, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stallard, A. W.



McBride, Neil
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCann, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Dunnett, Jack
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, Tom
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Evans, Fred

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Varley, Eric G.


Foley, Maurice
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ginsberg, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Golding, John
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Eddis (Brightside)
Ogden, Eric



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Hamling, William
Oram, Bert
Mr. Kenneth Marks.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
We had had a long sitting, Sir Alfred. It is now 20 minutes to seven in the

morning, and I hope that the Committee will think it appropriate for me to move this Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress: to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That Mr. Concannon, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. Antony Lambton, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles, Mr. John Morris, Mr. James Ramsden, Mr. Patrick Wall, and Mr. James Wellbeloved be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill [Lords]:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. More.]

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES (WIDOWS' PENSIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. More.]

6.40 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I am glad to be able to raise this subject, even at this very early hour of the morning. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has to be here now, because I know that, like some others, he has an engagement at 9 o'clock. I am also sorry that my hon. Friend has to defend the deplorable regulation to which I shall refer so far as it concerns members of the Armed Forces who marry after their retirement. It is said that this is covered by the whole of the public sector pensions, and this is true, but there is a substantial difference, to which I shall refer, between Armed Forces pensions and public sector pensions.
I do not think that the matter has been referred to very often in the House. So far as I know, the last time was when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army asked a Question in 1964, and he then received a similar answer to what we have had in the past, that this is the same throughout the public sector.
As my hon. Friend knows, under the current regulations the widow of a member of the Armed Forces who married her husband after his retirement or is not eligible for a Forces Family Ordinary Pension, and a number of arguments have been put forward for this situation, especi-

ally by the Treasury—I do not blame my hon. Friend for this—which does not appear to understand the fundamental difference between the Armed Forces scheme and those in the public sector. I do not know that the Treasury really wishes to understand. There is not a large number of people involved, and there is a definite difference between the two to which I wish my hon. Friend to reply when I have dealt with it.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) wishes to contribute to the debate, so I propose to sit down fairly soon to allow him to speak for a few moments.
In most Western European countries the regulations are civilised and humane for the widows of ex-Servicemen who marry after retirement, and I cannot understand why that cannot be done in this country. In Austria a pension is paid to the widow if the husband has had five years service and the second marriage has lasted for more than three years. In Belgium a pension is paid where the husband has had 10 years service and the marriage after retirement has lasted for more than one year. In France it is paid if the marriage after retirement from the Services has lasted for more than three years and there are children, or six years if there are no children. In Greece—and we have heard a good deal about the Greek Army in another context—there are no special conditions whatsoever. In Italy, West Germany and Finland they have different regulations, but all allow a widow a pension if she marries a Serviceman after his retirement. Why is it that ours is the only country in Western Europe which seems unable to devise reasonable regulations for this purpose? The husband's length of service in some of the cases which I shall mention in a moment is far longer than the minimum requirements in other countries.
There is no question but that there is a good deal of bureaucratic insensitivity about this, because the comparable situation between Civil Service pensions and Armed Forces pensions has been widely misunderstood and I want to quote some examples of what really happens where those who have served their country best in war are totally ignored by the Treasury in the sense that their widows get no pension at all.
One example which I have been authorised to quote by name is the widow of Captain Warburton-Lee who led the second destroyer flotilla at Narvik in 1940 and was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross. This lady is still alive. In 1943 she married again. This time her husband was a man who retired from the Army after losing a leg in the First World War. She has neither a Service pension nor a war widow's pension. She is excluded on the basis that I have mentioned of marriage after retirement. Her income precludes the restoration of her first war widow's pension, because there is a means test and she has too big an income for that. Hers is not a case of hardship, but it is a question of principle, and not a matter of which any Administration should be proud.
I know of another V.C.'s widow who is destitute, and has been helped by charities. Her husband won a V.C. before the First World War, and then the M.C. and retired in 1925. He married the lady concerned in 1926 and he died two years later. She received no pension at all. How can any Administration defend that position? It is a deplorable situation. My hon. Friend may feel that he must take the Treasury point of view, but I ask him whether, after the debate, he would be prepared to receive a deputation from hon. Members on both sides of the House—they have written to me about this—including one quite senior Member opposite.
In the third case the widow of a Royal Marine married another Royal Marine after his retirement. She married two Royal Marines. The total service of her two husbands is 57 years. She is not eligible for a pension. That cannot be right. In my constituency two cases occurred which gave rise to this debate. The first concerned a widow of a man killed in 1940. She married a man with 36 years' service, three weeks after his retirement. She was not aware of these regulations. She is not entitled to a pension. The other case was a more recent one, where the widow concerned is in very difficult circumstances.
The Treasury argument is that this creates a new entitlement, and that one can refer to the position in the Civil Service. But there are essential differences between the Armed Forces and the

Civil Service. First, members of the Armed Forces generally retire considerably younger than do members of the Civil Service. Further, since the reign of Queen Anne, the Armed Forces scheme has been paying widows' pensions as part of the conditions of service. Therefore, a member of the Armed Forces, by his service, "buys" his pension. He "earns" his pension by his service.
I have no time to deal with the ramifications of this situation at the moment. I merely ask my hon. Friend what reason can justify the Treasury's taking this attitude when there are clearly differences between the two types of pension. There is, however, no difference in the service given by a man who marries one day before he retires from the Armed Forces and a man who marries one day after, but the widow of one qualifies for a widow's pension and the widow of the other does not. That cannot be right. It is impossible to defend this situation very much longer.
I hope that my hon. Friend will approach the Secretary of State to discuss this matter with the Treasury before he receives the deputation, that he will conclude that these regulations should be abolished and that a pension should be paid to widows under conditions similar to those that obtain in overseas territories, especially in the European countries that I have mentioned. The first condition would be that the husband should not have been over 65 when he married, the second that he had completed at least 20 years' service and the third that the marriage had lasted two years.
The Officers' Pension Society has supplied me with a considerable amount of statistics and this information. It is not known exactly how many widows or persons who are still alive are affected by this regulation, including those of all ranks, but it cannot be a large number, so that the question of cost cannot be important. It is not only a question of the regulation to which I am referring but the wretched attitude of the Treasury towards those who have served this country so well.

6.50 a.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to intervene in the debate. I wish, immediately, to declare my interest in that


I shall be citing a case which I know particularly well, though it is typical of several cases to which my attention has been drawn by my constituents.
The case I cite is that of my mother, who married my father in 1923, he having retired the year previously from regular service in the Brigade of Gurkhas, which he had joined in 1898. He retired having been invalided out of the service as a result of illness, which he contracted in the East African Campaign and the Third Afghan War. He was a lieutenant-colonel at the time, but had been an acting brigadier during the East African Campaign. Although they had been married for 47 years when he died early last year, my mother, who is now in her early 70s, receives no pension at all in respect of my father's service.
I fully support the plea made by my hon. Friend both on her behalf and on behalf of the small group of mostly elderly widows involved. I also utterly support the contention that this would not create a precedent and would be an extremely worth-while act of justice, mainly to widows of a group of Servicemen who served their country for a considerable time with some distinction.

6.52 a.m.

Mr. David James: I rise merely to associate myself with what has been said on this subject because I have received an enormous postbag on this issue from my constituents. There cannot have been many occasions when so many hon. Members have been in their places at nearly seven o'clock in the morning to be present for a debate of this nature. This shows the amount of interest there is in the matter.

6.53 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): My hon. Friends have referred to the number of hon. Members who have remained behind to listen to this debate. I agree that this is a sign of the importance of the subject, an importance which I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) I appreciate as much as he does.
No Government spokesman is put in an easy position on an occasion like this, though I know that my hon. Friend is not

expecting me this morning to announce any major change in policy. However, I wish to meet him at once on one point. If he cares to bring a deputation to see me, or perhaps to see me in conjunction with a Minister of another Department—I say that for reasons which I will outline shortly—I shall be only too glad to see him.
I will begin by explaining the present position, because it is important to realise what is behind it. Despite what my hon. Friend maintained about there being a difference in policy, it is a general principle across the public service as a whole that women who marry after their husbands have refired are not subsequently entitled to a widow's pension.
We are here talking about what one might call the Service pension rather than the industrial pension. The industrial pension, which in the case of the Services would be the war widow's pension, is administered by the Secretary of State for Social Services and requires no minimum length of service and continues for the war widow as long as she continues to live. Pensions under occupational schemes within the Government service have always been subject to this particular restriction.
My hon. Friend referred to the reign of Queen Anne. I have not traced the matter as far back as that, but the Royal Warrant of 1818 referred to the widows of officers who die while on half pay being precluded from pension unless their marriage took place before the officer was reduced or placed on half pay.
As I said, that is a principle which has obtained for a very long time, and it was repeated in the 1907 Royal Warrant which stipulated that a pension would not be granted where marriage took place after retirement except where the retirement took place before the date of the Warrant, was due to wounds or illness caused by military service and satisfied certain other conditions. This regulation was incorporated in the new Forces Family Pension Scheme of 1953, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will no doubt remind me if I do not remind her first, applies to all ranks, whereas before only officers and warrant officers were included for pension.
I start from the no doubt very unsympathetic point of view, but that from which any Minister must start, that this is a principle which goes back as long as widows' pensions go back. The argument advanced for changing it in the case of the Armed Services is that they are entirely different from any other category of public servants. As one who has been privileged to serve not only in the Armed Services but politically with two of them, I am only too proud to acknowledge that this is true. Most of the Armed Forces' conditions of service are specially tailored to the particular and unusual requirements and circumstances of Service life.
But occupational pensions for the Armed Forces, as opposed to war widows' pensions to which I referred earlier, must follow the same principles as govern public service occupational pensions generally, varying only in the same sort of way that pension conditions for policemen are different from those of teachers. The rule throughout the public service is that a widow is debarred from receiving a pension if the marriage took place after retirement.
It is true that a civil servant who is unmarried on retirement receives a refund of his own contributions to the widows' pension scheme back to the date when his wife pre-deceased him. This covers the point that one cannot pass on any entitlement to a service pension to anybody else. This emphasises that there cannot be entitlement to a widow's pension for anyone he thereafter marries. The service scheme is non-contributory and therefore there is nothing to refund, any more than the notional Treasury contribution is refunded in the case of the civil servant.
I do not think that one can argue the proposition that because Servicemen do not contribute to retired pay and pensions they are in a different position from the rest of the public sector. My hon. Friend referred to the idea that the Serviceman buys his pension benefits with service as opposed to those who contribute cash. As for the public service, the qualifications for retirement pension and widows' pension and the rates at which they are paid are established by length of service, and after the initial

qualification the rates are related broadly to length of service. Whether the scheme is contributory or non-contributory has no bearing on these conditions; nor is it of significance in the case of a contributory scheme whether such contributions are a deduction from salary or from a man's terminal benefits.
There is, of course, a certain administrative simplicity in having a noncontributory scheme. And yet to emphasise the irrelevance of this issue in regard to rights arising from one method or the other, we have in the Civil Service a non-contributory retirement pension and a contributory widows' pension scheme, though the amount of this pension is fixed as one-third of the entitlement to the retirement pension. A civil servant who married after retirement below the age of 70 has an opportunity to sacrifice part of his pension to "buy" an actuarily-calculated pension for his widow. A service officer in a similar position can under present rules commute part of his retired pay to buy his wife an annuity after his death. There is a close parallel there between the two operations.
Another point stressed by my hon. Friend was that service people generally retire younger than civil servants. That is true to some extent of the general Civil Service, but there are other categories of public servants, for instance policemen, who retire on pension quite often at an even earlier age, and who would therefore be more likely to marry after retirement but whose widows would not have any title to an occupational pension. There is a similar situation in the case of a civil servant who retires voluntarily at the age of 50. In such cases the principle is even more strongly applied. His own pension is frozen and is not payable until he reaches the age of 60, yet if he marries after retirement, say, at 50, though still not receiving a pension, his widow would not get a pension from the Civil Service unless he allocated part of his own pension to her. The same rule applies in the case of civil servants compulsorily retired, except that they get their pension from the date of retirement.
I have said enough to show that this is not a matter limited to the Armed Services. That is the reason why if my


hon. Friend wishes to bring a deputation to see me I shall be delighted, but I shall be happier if the matter is dealt with across the board rather than limited to the Armed Forces as a whole. The principle is general, and the remedy, if there is to be a remedy, can only be one applied across the board. Whether or not there is to be a remedy it is not for me to say. I am merely trying to explain the position.
My hon. Friend urged me to look outside this country. He himself has done so, and he gave certain European examples. It may seem curious, coming from someone with my beliefs and background, if I urge my hon. Friend to look at the Commonwealth rather than at Europe. He will find that this problem is not easily resolved.

Dr. Alan Glyn: My hon. Friend was asked exactly how many people are affected by this unfortunate situation.

Mr. Kirk: I was coming to that question, but I will answer it now. I do not know, and I do not think that anyone else does.
There are in Australia and New Zealand no Service pensions to widows who married after their husbands' retirement. New Zealand once allowed such pensions but abolished them in 1949. A woman who marries a Canadian Service man after his retirement or discharge may be awarded a widow's pension if the marriage took place before the husband's 60th birthday and lasted at least a year, but the pension may be reduced, for reasons which I find difficult to follow, if there is an age difference of 20 years or more between husband and wife. My information does not say which must be older.
We cannot make very profitable comparisons with other countries—

Mr. Neave: I have suggested three conditions which I believe to be reasonable. Why cannot they be adopted?

Mr. Kirk: I am not in a position to say that tonight. The point I am trying to elucidate is that there is a general principle here and that the Government cannot consider the Armed Forces in isolation from the rest of the public services.

Dame Irene Ward: I thought that we were a modernising Government. It is no good talking about Queen Anne. We want to talk about the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and to modernise ourselves.

Mr. Kirk: I agree with my hon. Friend. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon who mentioned Queen Anne.

Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend mentioned Queen Anne.

Mr. Kirk: Only because my hon. Friend did. I mentioned the pay warrant of 1818, which is the first one of which we have a record.
There is not much that we can gain by looking at the example of other countries. The essential thing is that if we consider this scheme at all we must consider it across the whole field. It is on that basis that I shall be prepared, with, I hope, one of my colleagues, to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend—

Dame Irene Ward: And a lot of us.

Mr. Kirk: Certainly—as many as my hon. Friend cares to bring along. I shall be delighted if my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth comes along, too.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about hon. Members opposite?"] There was an hon. Gentleman sitting on the benches opposite a few moments ago. I understand from my hon. Friend that he has support from the other side of the House as well.
I have stated the general principle that pension or retired pay must be related to the circumstances and conditions at the time of retirement and cannot be subject to obligations undertaken thereafter. The pension entitlement is restricted to those for whom the Service had some responsibility at the time of retirement.
It should also be remembered that the widow who was married after her husband's retirement will not normally have shared the exigencies and responsibilities of Service life. There are, of course, cases of Service widows—my hon. Friend mentioned one—who re-marry after their husband's death and thereby lose their earlier pension. As he pointed out, they can have the pension restored after their second widowhood, if they have one, but on a means test basis. If my hon. Friend


wishes to discuss this with me when he brings the deputation, I shall certainly be prepared to discuss it. But I can, I am afraid, hold out no hope of considering this matter purely on an Armed Services basis. It is a matter which stretches across the whole of the public service

and it would be unfair to the whole of the public service if we were to single out the Armed Forces in this way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Seven o'clock a.m.